What the Times Didn’t Tell About McCain
As Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain twisted briefly in the wind kicked up by that New York Times story suggesting he had swapped political favors for the personal favors of an attractive lobbyist for the telecommunications industry, I kept waiting for the public policy punch line. Surely the Times would spell out just what it was that McCain had delivered to big media beyond what the paper originally reported: an all-too-typical congressional request that the FCC speed up its review of a broadcast licensing dispute.
Vicki Iseman, the lobbyist in question, is praised on her company’s Web site for her “extensive experience in telecommunications, representing corporations before the House and Senate Commerce Committees,” and for “her work on the landmark 1992 and 1996 communications bills.” Now that’s a biggie, because the 1996 legislation, although you would never have learned this from the mainstream media at the time, opened the floodgates for massive media consolidation, thus rewarding media moguls for their many millions in campaign contributions. McCain was a big player on that Commerce Committee at the time, and I expected a Times revelation as to just how Iseman got McCain to help gift the media barons with their dream legislation.
The revelation never came, because the annoying reality is that McCain was one of the rare Senate opponents of the telecom bill that Iseman was pushing-as opposed to The New York Times, which like every other major media outlet pushed for the legislation (in the case of the Times, without ever conceding its own corporation’s financial bias in the matter). McCain was one of five senators (and the sole Republican) who, along with Democrats Russ Feingold, Patrick Leahy, Paul Simon and the great Paul Wellstone, voted against the atrocious legislation, which President Bill Clinton signed into law.
The Times, which now has the temerity to question McCain’s integrity on telecommunications policy, ran a shameful editorial back then, under the headline “A Victory for Viewers,” insisting after the passage of the legislation that “there was one clear winner-the consumer.” Seven years later, the paper’s “Editorial Observer,” Brent Staples, bemoaned one direct consequence of the passage of the Telecom Act, under the title “The Trouble with Corporate Radio: The Day the Protest Music Died.” Noting that “corporate ownership has changed what gets played-and who plays it,” Staples observed that the top two radio owners went from having a total of 115 stations before the act was passed to 1,400 between them afterward.
This concentration of ownership in all media was the inevitable result of the legislation that the media moguls sought. That far-reaching impact was obvious only one year after the act’s passage, as Neil Hickey noted at the time in the Columbia Journalism Review: ” … far and away the splashiest effect of the new law during the last year has been the historic, unprecedented torrent of mergers, consolidations, buyouts, partnerships, and joint ventures that has changed the face of Big Media in America.” He then offers a staggering list of massive multibillion-dollar mergers consummated during that first year.
One of the early winners was Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., which quickly became the biggest owner of television stations, bolstering its lineup of media properties such as TV Guide, HarperCollins and Twentieth Century Fox; quite a gift from legislation signed by President Clinton, which perhaps explains the warm relationship that subsequently developed between Murdoch and Hillary Clinton. Murdoch sponsored a fundraiser for Clinton’s senatorial re-election campaign in 2006, but when asked during the Iowa primary about Murdoch’s vast media holdings, including Fox News, the New York Post and The Wall Street Journal, Clinton ducked the question. Avoiding any reference to Murdoch, she conceded that “… there have been a lot of media consolidations in the last several years, and it is quite troubling.”
It’s not easy to maintain an evenhanded appraisal of McCain as he appropriates the Bush mantle. Of course, I wouldn’t vote for him; he is willing to let the Iraq war go on for a hundred years, and at the rate of at least $200 billion a year, that makes a mockery of his efforts to defeat earmarks and other wasteful government spending-beginning with the massive waste in the Pentagon budget that he has done so much to expose. His capitulation on President Bush’s use of torture is even more appalling. But it is absurd to attempt to pigeonhole McCain as a patsy for corporate lobbyists when he has been in the forefront of key efforts to challenge their power.
Robert Scheer is editor of Truthdig.com and a regular columnist for The San Francisco Chronicle.
© 2008 TruthDig.com
I saw a biography of McCain– he screwed up several airplanes that he flew and was implicated in the fire on board of a ship that ended up killing 100 plus soldiers. he spent 5 years in prison in Hanoi– leading very little - just surviving- good for him but not a leadership assignment.
The bio said that he was a party boy in college, and grades were mediocre– does that remind anybody of anyone?
Enough of the war heroes. Give me somebody who can be a classy peacemaker.
PS. The seond wife of McCain, Cindy, she looks like a recovered addict so I googled her and sure enough- a few years ago she was cought stealing drugs -Vicodin - from a charity and John McCain did not even notice there was anything wrong with his own wife. Maybe busy chasing the lobbyists.
Read about the Straight Talk Express - that bus that McCain is cruising around with in the country since 8 years– calling people “my friend” and greeting the reporters with a friendly “hi jerks” - a long story in the New Yorker Magazine Feb 28, 2008- the cover has a budding writer getting published on page 30 by Ryan Lizza. Read about the seedy characters surrounding McCain.
McCain will not even come close to getting the Presidency at age 72. He has my sympathy, I think he has done some good such as fighting against torture but he is not qualified to be our next President.
After living with a man with Borderline Personality Disorder, I would have stolen drugs to sedate myself if I could too. I took some Vicodin for an infected tooth while I lived with that man. Amazing how everything looks better on that drug. It’s possible to deal with someone who has enormous mood swings and angry outbursts while you’re on Vicodin. Poor meek little Cindy. I understand what she goes through. McCain has that Borderline face, the clenched and tensed jaw to keep himself from exploding. Heaven help this country if McCain becomes president. Personality disorder writ large.
An interesting irony here — Dem Party apologists regularly justify their party’s appalling cowardice with lame excuses like, “Well, if the Dems actually tried to impeach Bush, or to stop the war, the media would jump all over them, portray them as ‘unpatriotic’ — and they’d lose the election!” (Only yesterday, CD’s own lovable DD & Kernel used this feeble excuse for the Democrats’ impotence.)
However, as Scheer’s article points out, the Dems themselves — led by Bill Clinton (no doubt with Hillary’s support) — did much to make the media into the monster that it now is, by quietly passing the 1996 Telecom Act.
Putting these ideas together, one sees that the Dems on the one hand acted directly to loosen restrictions on media concentration, thereby creating gigantic & out-of-control media monsters — but on the other hand now use fear of the corporate media, to justify their refusal to ever act in the public interest!!
This staggering hypocrisy illustrates what can reasonably be expected from Democrats. First they give away the store, then use the fact that the store has been given away, to justify doing nothing about problems that giving away the store helped create! // Beyond that — the coziness between Hillary and Murdoch is simply beneath contempt. Media tycoons like Murdoch are modern day Robber Barons — enemies of the public interest, pure and simple.
RichM talks of hypocricy from the “dems”. As if everyone who would vote for a dem in the next cartoon election is tied to the Clintons. Fuck the Clintons. They are and have been the best republicans you assholes have had. Them and Leiberman.
Its all about the money. Fuck the parties, pick the person who most has a chance to change things. Unfortunately, we are down to three choices and McCain is the worst followed by Hillary.
Like Scheer says, and I agree with, “It’s not easy to maintain an evenhanded appraisal of McCain as he appropriates the Bush mantle. Of course, I wouldn’t vote for him; he is willing to let the Iraq war go on for a hundred years, and at the rate of at least $200 billion a year, that makes a mockery of his efforts to defeat earmarks and other wasteful government spending-beginning with the massive waste in the Pentagon budget that he has done so much to expose.”
So who would you vote for? McCain is insane. Not many choices left. Oh, that’s right you people would never vote for a black person.
Seriously, this is the best candidate that the R party could come up with? I think they’re trying to lose. I think those who call the shots want a man of colour or a woman, and a CommieLiberalDemocrat at that, to be at the helm when this whole 15%-money-supply-growth thing really hits the fan. McCain is the new Kerry.
Nader is right, if the Dems can’t landslide the Repubs in this election, they need to go home and re-emerge and all that.
McCain wins, becomes president because he comes across as “authentic.”
Hillary and Barack seem phony by comparison.
Americans are just too moronic to appreciate and understand their own interests.
Bruce Wayne said, “Criminals are a superstitious cowardly lot, I must strike terror into their hearts, I will be a Bat Man!”
McCain will say, “The electorate is a superstitious cowardly lot, I will strike terrorism into their hearts, I will be ELECTED!”
Game over.
New York Times is playing good cop bad cop and at the same time manipulating the voters. Remember that bitch Bush shill, Judy Miller and her grandiose articles about WMD? I’m seeing the same thing being played out. The NYT endorsed John McCain. It was no accident that the unflattering McCain article ran. It was to elicit sympathy for McCain in an offhand way. It worked. I saw this morning that McCain was rising in the poll while Clinton and Obama were falling. The talk about NYT being a “liberal” publication is just that. They manipulated the people in howling for Saddam’s blood and now they are manipulating the public support towards McCain.
Senators need 5-10 million to run a race for election. They don’t get it from me and you.
Straight-talk man is a lot of jive.
John McCain, a straight-shooter with forked tongue.
Says he’s against torture, then votes for Bush’s waterboarding/torture.
Says he’s against saying stupid things (Hussein middle name for Obama) about Senate colleagues but said the most horrendous things about Senator Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea.
This straight-shooter is a back stabber!
Straight talker is in bed with the lobbyists-possibly also in bed with a lobbyist. (in this I follow the Dick Cheney Doctrine–if there is a 2% chance of a story being true, then, by God, it is true.)And his bus is lobbyist run –while me and you try to get by with 3.00+ gas.
Not excusing the man, but isn’t that the way our system works? When our founders steered the country between monarchy and democracy, didn’t they come up with Oligarchy–rule by the rich?
Isn’t that what lobbyists facilitate? Middle men, in this case middle women, take money from
a rich corporation and give it to a politician so as to influence his vote.
This is the way it works, no?
ABSCAM Congressman Ozzie Myers famously remarked, “Money talks, bullshit walks.”; it ought to replace “E pluribus unum” on our currency.
McCain is not a hero or a man of integrity !
McCain bombed civilian targets which under international law makes him a war criminal.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/06/6878/
And according to intelligence sources, he “cooperated” with his captors in exchange for special treatment.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=60020
” According to T, they reveal that McCain had made an “accommodation” with his captors, and in exchange, T’s father saw that he was provided with an apartment in Hanoi and the services of two prostitutes. Upon returning to his prison cell, he would say he had been held in solitary confinement. That may be why so many of his fellow prisoners said later they saw so little of him at Hoa Loa.
In other words, the CIA has in its possession the notes and reports of John McCain’s interrogators at the Hanoi Hilton, in both the original Vietnamese and translated Russian, showing collaboration with his Communist captors.”
The McCain list of dishonor goes on and on as our “hero” is very tight with Joe (Iraq War Resolution) Lieberman and Zionist neocons.
http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2006/07/24299.php
~METAMORPH~ You are TOTALLY incorrect about one thing about McCain. You should get your facts straight before you spread that rumor, it only makes you look lbad.
That accident on the carrier was filmed and that film has been shown on national television several times. McCain had nothing whatsoever to do with what happened that day, except to escape from the ensung ball of fire.
A missile on another parked aircraft fired due to a faulty wiring problem and it struck McCains aircraft and exploded. That was the cause of the accident, not McCain. If he damaged other aircraft during his Naval career, I have never heard of it, except from bloggers on this site, do you have any credible references? ___ BTW, I also do not wish to see him elected as our president.
The NYT - a bastion of independent integrity!
“We publish stories when they are ready,” Executive Editor Bill Keller said in a statement.”
Er… mostly?
“A column by New York Times public editor Byron Calame August 13 reveals that the newspaper withheld a story about the Bush administration’s program of illegal domestic spying until after the 2004 election, and then lied about it.”
Republicans are just confused. They think they’re voting for John McClain for President.
http://www.anationforchange.com/
RichM wrote: “However, as Scheer’s article points out, the Dems themselves - led by Bill Clinton (no doubt with Hillary’s support) - did much to make the media into the monster that it now is, by quietly passing the 1996 Telecom Act.”
(Big Al Gore sigh) RichM, read Scheer’s article again carefully — not all of the Dems were onboard: “Democrats Russ Feingold, Patrick Leahy, Paul Simon and the great Paul Wellstone, voted against the atrocious legislation, which President Bill Clinton signed into law.”
The Democratic Party doesn’t march in lockstep — if you want to blame some Dems for cowardice or voting for onerous legislation, I’m with you, but stop using the broad brush to smear Dems who have stood up against monster.
There is also, as I’m sure you’re aware, two factions in the Dem Party — the DLC-Clinton Dems, AKA ‘Republican Lite,’ and the ‘Classic’ Populist FDR Dems. Howard Dean or Russ Feingold, for example, would be Classic Dems; Billary, Harry Reid, Joe Lieberman would be examples of the other type. The DLC Dems have been holding most of the cards since Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992, but that’s changing.
As far as McCain, whatever his vote on the telecom bills, the real point of the NY Times story was that he sent inappropriate letters to the FCC, elbow-twisting on behalf of his friend and campaign contributor ‘Bud’ Paxson. Straight Talker McCain then lied through his teeth that he had no meetings with Paxson on the matter, which both Paxson and another source have now said is not true. Unfortunately, the high school gossips of the Big Media have focused on the sex angle and concluded that their fave-rave John McCain ‘didn’t have sex with that woman,’ thereby invalidating the real story that former-Keating Five ‘reformer’ McCain is just as cravenly corrupt as the rest of his party.
Mairs, a psychologist I know confirms your observations of McCain’s clenched jaw and his gripping the podium tightly as signs of a Borderline Personality Disorder; she also says the constant blinking, unless he has really terrible contacts, is a ‘tell’ that he’s either not being truthful or that he’s ashamed of what he’s saying. She thinks, if pressed hard in a debate or by a reporter, that he might very well explode and show his true angry, miserable inner self.
Drwu, that would be a good national slogan; on the reverse of the coin it could say “What’s In It For Me?” or “I’ve Got Mine, Jack!” although that last one may be a little too British.
Well there is an upside to all this.
Thanks to Ralph, if McCain wins we can blame him… He enjoys it too.
Now this is an article I will express my thanks to Robert Scheer for.
And while I agree with him on McCain due to his position on continuing the GWoT wars, this also causing me to figure that I’d never want to vote for him, he has me a little stumped. The thing about it that is causing this stumpage is that he’s at least HONEST about what his position really is, in terms of what he now knows of it, what he now believes is right, in his either delusional and/or too uninformed mind.
It’s the honesty part that causes me to wonder if there wouldn’t be greater chance of converting him to seeing, accepting, and subsequently acting upon the fact that the whole GWoT is totally criminal and that the makers of all of this are not yet certainly known to be guilty in the 9-11, ‘New Pearl Harbour’, attacks, but most surely or likely are; and … etc.
Problem with Obama and Clinton is that neither of them is at all honest about stopping the war, for while they claim to pledge to do this, should they be elected president, these claims are trivial to prove to be extremely FALSE; and that they are either lying to their supporters, or that as well as to themselves.
It’s easier to deal with someone who is mistaken, but honest, than it is to work on trying to fairly deal with someone who’s both very mistaken and very dishonest, liar, CHARLATAN.
So which is it, is Obama just so damn f*cking stupid that he doesn’t realise that what he pledges to do with respect to the war on Iraq is not going to stop the war, at all, or is he deliberately trying to deceive his supporters?!
I’ll leave it to his supporters to answer such questions for themselves, for there’s no way that I’d vote for him. He’s war criminal for totally siding with Israel in its hellbent crimes against Palestinians, just like Clinton also is; all while McCain provides far greater hope in this respect than either Obama or Clinton do.
ETC.
From what I recently read, McCain stands far apart from the likes of Bush and his ilk, neocons, corporatists, etc., when it comes to national US issues; it’s on the foreign policies that he’s Bush-et al in likeness.
Mistaken he is about some things, but his honesty should not be an overlooked factor; it should be carefully considered in terms of who the electorate can vote for and with the greatest hope for strategically being able to act to get whoever is elected president to stop all international crimes, so including terrorism, of the USA, and therefore of its NATO-butt-licking allies.
Slight correction: Wherein I posted,
“From what I recently read, McCain stands far apart from the likes of Bush and his ilk, neocons, corporatists, etc., when it comes to national US issues; it’s on the foreign policies that he’s Bush-et al in likeness”,
I still say that, only for my view to be correctly understood, I need to specify the additional reference to the Israeli govt’s hell reined upon Palestine, Lebanon, etc.
What I recently read about McCain in terms of being starkly different, even polar-opposite, of the neocons and other insane politicians profiting from siding with the religious right-wing’ers, extremists, … of the USA, well, this tells me that McCain also is or would be certainly better in terms of the urgent need to put a dead stop to Israel’s crimes and any more US manufacturers’ weapons sales to Israel.
He’s very against, apparently in excellent terms, the religious right, extremists of the USA.
That is somewhat encompassed in terms of him being starkly different than Bush et al on national US issues, except this is one that even far more importantly has extremely criminal repercussions for Palestinians and others.
Mike, Good point but did you ever wonder that if Obama believed what you are saying and made that the issue, I don’t think he would be alive or threatening to win the most powerful post on the planet….
Some folks like us say the truth and get published here on line (thank god) and some folks who get elected don’t say everything that is on their minds until they are in a position to do something about it.
this didn’t work to well for Bobby Kennedy since he wanted to wait until he was President before he launched a real investigation of his Brother’s covered up assassination coup.
I could be wrong about Obama in my mania and he could start more wars than he ends…. I just got a gut feelin that he is the best freaking chance for some sane leadership we will get in a long time…..
I’ll take a chance on Obama and I’ll take a chance on Love
RSJ (3:15) claims there are “two factions in the Dem Party” — the DLC type, and the “Classic Populist FDR Dems.” He doesn’t say how big the two factions are, though. A reasonable estimate would be that the DLC faction comprises over 90% of Congressional Dems. (Let’s say that the number of Congressional Dems who supported Kucinich’s impeachment articles would be a rough indicator of how many ‘Classic Populist FDR Dems’ there are in the House. That would be about 20, out of 233 — less than 10%. The House is MORE liberal than the Senate. IOW, the figures would be even more heavily tilted to DLC Dems, in the Senate.)
RSJ suggests that Howard Dean is an example of the “Classic FDR Dems.” OK, fine - let’s look at that. Has Howard Dean come out in favor of impeachment? Has he denounced the Iraq War as a violation of the Nuremberg Principles, and a war crime? Has he stated publicly that the Bush administration has repeatedly violated the Constitution? Has he denounced signing statements, or demanded restoration of habeas corpus, or denounced the 2006 Military Commissions Act (passed with considerable support from Congressional Dems, with no attempt to filibuster)? Has he called for cuts in military spending? Denounced torture? Denounced NSA eavesdropping? Has he made any strong public statements about Bush stealing the 2000 (& probably 2004) election(s)?
Needless to say, Howard Dean has spoken out on exactly NONE of those things. This is RSJ’s example of the “Classic FDR Dem”!!
RSJ advises that I look more carefully at Scheer’s article, which cites “Democrats Russ Feingold, Patrick Leahy, Paul Simon and the great Paul Wellstone” as having voted against the atrocious Telecom Act. OK, fine. Of those 4, two are dead. Feingold, meanwhile, though clearly one of the few decent Democrats, is a consistent full-throated supporter of Israeli aggression. And when he gallantly tried to pass a measure censuring Bush, 2 years ago, he could scarcely find any Dem colleagues in the US Senate to support him. I don’t even think he got his motion out of committee & to the floor for a general vote. When a hearing was held in the Judiciary Committee, 5 of the 8 Dems on the committee conveniently managed to be absent.
In other words, it is PERFECTLY justified to paint Democrats with a broad brush. The accurate statement about Democrats is that over 90% of them are worthless cowards, who either actually agree with Republicans, or are too gutless & corrupt to oppose Republicans in any meaningful way.
I am not going to engage in any swift boating - he’s a Republican who seems bent on continuing Bush and Cheney’s legacy and I think that is more important than his sex life or military record. He was there, he got injured, he got metals - enough said.
Ok, McCain does look an awful lot like Cotton Hill from “King of The Hill.”
hey, richm, that was actually a republican congress and senate that passed that law, but bill clinton did sign it. but who cares what the facts were as long as we can complain about it, right? let’s blame democrats for what bush and his republican abettors did from january, 2001 to january, 2007.
you are right to blame democrats for not IMPEACHing BUSH.
now we need this next congress and president to repeal that law! let protest music ride the air waves again!
mary lou (4:32) - Do you remember President Clinton or VP Gore addressing the American public, to alert the public to the potentially horrific consequences of the Telecom Act (that they signed, without even saying a public word about it)?
I didn’t think so. Because they never said a public word about it. I mean, they were president & VP, right? Shouldn’t they have felt some obligation to the public, to rally support for opposing this terrible law? Shouldn’t they have fought it, tooth and nail?
Did Clinton veto it? Nope. He simply quietly went along with what the Republicans wanted.
This isn’t mere “complaining.” It is pointing out that when there was a Dem president & a Republican Congress, the Republicans (& big business) got their way, and the Dem president didn’t even attempt to oppose what they did. Conversely, since 2006 we’ve had a Republican president and a Democratic Congress — but oddly, the result is precisely the same: the Republicans still always get their way.
Speaking of Paul Wellstone, does anyone else wonder about his well-timed (for Republicans) death? I still mourn for him.
Although Robert Scheer is about the only journalist I read, and not very often at that, and think he is fairly rational, he is off base in this piece for at least two reasons.One, McCain is a sleaze ball who gets caught in obvious contradictions–and he always has–going back to the Keating five. Having a lobbyist paid by the lobbying company as a major member of his campaign is hardly a recommendation for a Mr. Clean, although the former writer for the Murdoc rag, The Weekly Slander, and now the NYT, believes that should be the model. Second, the focus must be kept on McCain’s war mongering, and this lobbyist bit is shifting the primary focus away from this major of major issues. We do not need to be told he would not vote for McCain, a McBush for certain; no rational person would. If one really wants to see an example of a politician with intergity, google Charles Weltner of Atlanta, who was a congressman who represented the district that John Lewis not represents, who withdrew as the incumbent candidate for the district when Lester Maddox was running as a Democrat for the governor of Georgia, because he had pledged to support the Democratic party candidates, but was unwilling to endorse Maddox. Weltner is the rarest of the rare: an honest politician, and a giant of a man which also demonstrates how really slimy the war criminal McCain is.
After Bush why any American would consider voting for any Republican is entirely beyond me. Then I suppose, after WW2, if Hitler had been around there would’ve been Germans who would’ve still voted for him.
I grant you that the Democrat Presidential line-up is pretty paltry now but surely the Republicans are a big NO, NO!
P.S. Murdoch and his ilk should have their empires broken up and spread to the four winds. You can’t have a democracy with capitalist media monopolies in operation.
www.dangeroucreation.com
How arrogant of McCain to say Obama doesn’t know about al Qaeda in Iraq. Who wouldn’t know it after five years of bloodshed?
McCain can disguise it all he wants, he’s still a smart aleck who doesn’t know when to shut up.
We can thank him for al Qaeda in Iraq, since he let Bush send the troops there instead of finding Osama bin Laden wherever he was holed up in Afganistan.
Does McCain know bin Laden is still at large? Does he know he is responsible for 9/11 and not Saddam? Does he know how to get out of the mess he and his cohorts in Congress started?
Before he asks those questions of Obama, he should ask himself a few.
It’s hard to believe that McCain is the best the Repubs could promote. Makes me wonder with another conspiracy thought that revolting Bush has something up his sleeve. I just don’t believe that the right-wing wackos and Repubs and Bush gang are ready to retire. Something smells fishy.
The notion that McCain is a fighter against the corruption and corporatization of government is absurd. One needs only to identify those who work in his campaign to discover where his true allegiances lie:
The Anti-Lobbyist, Advised by Lobbyists
Boy I wouldn’t be so sure that old man McCain is out of the race as you implied metamorph- I’m just not that optimistic. It’s pretty scary when you hear the media start praising McCain’s position on the war (he wants to stay there for 100 years) as “courageous.” Its not out of the realm of possibility to suggest that as we get closer to the election we are going start seeing more bad guy looking Arab types with beards and AK-47’s shouting “Death to America,” while children dance on a smoldering American flag in an attempt to whip up support for McCain.
But wait are media would never do that would they? Oh wait…
Ken Patrick, you are correct and I was wrong– I just saw that biography again on TV and yes you are right, McCain was not the one who started that fireball on the aircraft carrier Forrster.
My apologies,- I got on here immedieately to correct myself but Ken patrick had already done it — however, everything else about McCain is clear— he is just one more “war hero” then running for Congress. just sitting for 5 years in prison has little to do with qualifiying person to lead people although countless people serve in the military as a prerequisite for then getting into politics.
I think people get injured putting up with 5 years of torture and I do not trust them to be healthy enough to make war and peace decisions at all.
The majority of Americans still views the Repuk party as legitimate against all reason and still considers corporate consolidation as “inevitable” after hearing the pundits/politicians squawk the line for a couple or three decades, with the feeble argument that regulation is unnatural and everything unnatural is doomed to fail, never mind that most all of the industrial pursuits by this network serve to exploit, override, or destroy natural biological and ecological systems.
Proper government regulation of elites and their “bright ideas” does not have a familar analog in nature because other species are not capable of appreciating the better interests of individuals and societies. But if we want to use out evolved conscience (it may be argued that we are obligated to), and progress toward civilization, it starts with government regulation of elites and their enterprises. Naturally the government would be freed from the jaws of the capitalist beast first, then the media.
The corporate media dominance really started under Reagan when the fairness doctrine was eliminated. It was then that the right wing hatchet men got a free pass for spewing their packaged hate all over the airwaves. They just about franchised all the negative elements of the south: (racism, bigotry, anti-intellectual/anti-science, xenophobia, scapegoating the poor, homophobic, misogamist, brain dead religious fundamentalism….. and yes, trashy country music and NASCAR) until it spread like a lethal virus throughout the nation. The dumbed down listeners with their working class wages started voting like the rich republicans that trapped them in their expanded media web. There was one simplistic voice ringing from coast and mr Joe average had about as much chance at resisting as he did about not getting addicted to cheap fast food and beer.
On the next level up millions of dollars created and sustained multiple ideologic right wing think tanks to complete with one of the last lingering areas were truth (or at least efficacy) was being pursued - the universities. Intellectual stooges were paid handsome wages and got their books published and purchased just for repeating the right-wing corporate party line. Whenever an article or ‘expert’ talking head was needed a button was pushed from the top and the appropriate answer was delivered. i.e. guns make society safer, minimum wage increases hurt everyone, lower taxes increases productivity and wealth for everyone, socialized medicine doesn’t work, deregulation solves all problems, aggressive military talk and action is the way to lasting peace…. we could go on and on as by now we all know the playbook.
The saddest fact is that now we all have to reap the tragic results of such blind ideologic nonsense.
The latest *poll* has McCain beating out Obama and Clinton.
This is highly suspect since McCain has been barely able to fend off Huckabee and the Democratic tallies in the primaries trounce the Republican turnout numbers. Apparently McCain *leads* on foreign policy when he echos the Bush administration during a time when the popular mandate rejects the Iraq disaster. The poll also reflects McCain ahead on the economy when he as much came out and admitted he knew nothing about economics.
This is all a part of campaign to spin it again, with an army of sneering, pinched Rightwing MSM hacks like Tucker Carlson, Glen Beck and that creepy Joe Scarsborough (who I heard this morning whining about President Carter’s criticism of Bush’s restriction of liberties) to disperse talking points, create wedge issues and fear and provide the mouthpiece for Corporate America to manufacture consensus. They do not reflect the popular will of the country but they are awarded prize slots as political observers and prime time programs–sometimes more than one or broadcast more than one time on a daily basis.
I slept on it and woke up why we do not want John McCain:
We are bombing Afghanistan and killing the same number of civilians as the taliban- we are of course loosing hearts and minds. This is happening because we do not have enough footdoldiers - one reason is of course because of the hubris of starting up the Iraq War.
The twentieth century started without airplanes. During WW1- the world changed because suddenly mankind was not safe from the air. One could be spied up and killed from above! Beatrice Wood, mother of the DADA art movement said that it was really an antiwar movement against the attack from airplanes !!
We who live in the 21sth century assume that the air is unsafe and airplanes, gunships from the air and now even unmanned missiles are part of the world.
Do we want to elect a President who piloted over 20 missions bombing the Vietnamese - felt great about it- got to be a war hero- a man who also was tortured and suffered hugely for over 5 years with over 1 year in isolation- a man who grew up with as a military brat with his famous father ignoring his tender needs and his father even bombing his prison location himself.
Now this man is supposed to be leading this nation and have the finger on the trigger - not only the nuclear trigger - but the trigger of all the airplanes wizzing around over those called terrorists- we will have a parking lot- there are those voters who are so angry at others that they want to do this.
The rest of us realize that this is no solution to our earth, our people on the earth - just because you have an airfocrce, you do not bomb people who are primitive living in villages…
Just because one has been martyred, one is not qualified to lead— unless you are a terrorist and value aartyrdom– just because there is martyrdome in the story of Christ, it is not the be all of Wesern thought.
We are in for a dangerous choice in picking John McCanin.
Pat Buchanan said several times that he would never pick John McCain- he is too bellicose…..
Meanwhile Chris Dodd endorsed Obama- that Dodd fellow is very experienced so if he picks Obama- then that is a good sign is what John Begala just now is saying on Imus in the Morning…..
I say we will be mighty sorry if we do not work hard to get Obama in there and to beat John Mccain.
“I saw a biography of McCain– he screwed up several airplanes that he flew and was implicated in the fire on board of a ship that ended up killing 100 plus soldiers. he spent 5 years in prison in Hanoi– leading very little - just surviving- good for him but not a leadership assignment.”
Exactly why the world needs geriatric manchurian candidate Bush on steroids next. This gung ho clown is exactly what the rest of the world wants for amerika because we know he will run serial killer amerika into the desert dirt where war machine amerika belongs.
My money is on the little guy with the big mouth and very tiny brain.
RichM, you’re absolutely right — only a minority of Dems are doing what you think they should do, so they should all be condemned — guilt by association, right? — but I think I have a solution to your complaints.
While I believe every American has the right to complain bitterly about politics and politicians, and I do a considerable amount of that myself, some of you carpers remind me of the GOP chickenhawks who want to start wars all over the planet as long as they don’t have to strap on a helmet and get shot at themselves. RichM, here’s a suggestion for you and your compadres who despise and deride the Democrats so much: Why don’t you run for office? Either as a Democrat, or a Green, or independent, or whatever — stop complaining that others aren’t doing what you want them to do and do it yourself. Go out and get the necessary signatures on a petition and file it with the state and put your name on the ballot. (And it has to be your full name; you won’t be able to hide behind a screen name.) Don’t like your senator or congressional rep? Run to replace them!
Then be prepared to slog around through all kinds of weather and shake hands and pass out campaign materials and make speeches to people who mainly don’t care; if you take intelligent and well-reasoned yet unpopular viewpoints, you’ll have to face audiences that may reject you, but I’m sure you’ll toughen up and learn to live with that. You will be trashed by your political enemies and, if you gain any traction in the polls, subjected to dirty tricks, even on the local level, and you’ll have to bear people and the media distorting your views and outright lying about you. Of course, you can try to defend or explain yourself, but you’ll find that most people tend to believe the first thing they hear about someone they don’t know and it’s very hard to convince them otherwise.
Then, after you’ve spent your own money and time, and borrowed and begged more cash to stay in the race, you’ll have to face the judgment of the voters. If after all that — months of tedium and long 16-hour days — you lose, you’ll be plagued by trying to figure out where you went wrong — was it your contention that 9/11 was partly an ‘inside job’ that did it? Or was it your support for Mumia? Or your anti-death penalty stance? Or something else? Was it you — was it just that most voters simply didn’t like you as a person?
But let’s say you happen to get elected; then you’ll be confronted with all kinds of compromises, if you actually want to get anything done. Of course, you can always take rigorous principled stands on every issue, and then sacrifice getting a bill passed that helps the poor people in your state or district because you refused to compromise on something else much less important. You can condemn both the other party/parties as corrupt pieces of crap, and even go after those who mostly agree with you if they deviate one iota from what you think they should be doing, but then it’ll be pretty hard to get those same people to support you when you want to impeach Cheney or block the next odious trade legislation. Why should they help you after you’ve insulted and denigrated them? Would you support them after being so castigated? If you think they should do it just because it’s the right thing to do, then you are extremely naive about the way people, politics, and governments operate. For that matter, if everyone always did the right thing, you wouldn’t need a government.
And then there are those ‘gray areas’ where the right thing to do isn’t always apparent. Is it right to tear down some old buildings to make way for a ‘green’ local business that will guarantee good-paying jobs to your constituents recycling products that help the environment, but at the same time will put the elderly residents of the old buildings out on the street, and there’s no money in the budget to help them move to a new location? That’s the kind of mundane dilemma lawmakers run up against every day, and there is rarely an ideal solution that satisfies everyone.
Progressive change has happened in this country, but it has always been a slow, arduous process brought about by people who were less than high-minded and perfect, but were willing to roll up their sleeves and do more than just sit on the couch and complain; our democracy is a sausage factory and most of us really don’t want to know (although we should) what rat turds and bug carcasses go into the final product. Now, that’s the reality, and the solons of good government by which some of you are enthralled is the dream — I don’t say abandon the dream, but be ready to get exhausted and dirty as you fight through the muck to realize it.
Of course, perhaps you’d rather have a King Ralph or Emperor Dennis governing by royal edict, but neither Nader, Kucinich, Cynthia McKinney nor Noam Chomsky is immune to human error or the truth of Lord Acton — absolute power does corrupt absolutely, even when wielded by the purest heart, and I think the progressives I just named would agree with that proposition and, on that basis, refuse to accept the throne.
When most American’s go to the polls they should put their countries welfare as their main interest! But, unfortunately most American’s don’t seem to. Which is why we have had a Republican President for two terms now. Even though he was proven to be a loser before the second term. They vote for the ‘hot button’ issues that drive them like guns, gays, abortion, religion in schools and etc. Issues that are only important to the petty in this country. That shouldn’t even be issues because they cloud the water and keep lawmakers from dealing with the real problems in this country! They don’t once think about this country or the people in it. Or try to respect someone else’s point of view. Republican’s have never had this countries best interests at heart. They are for the very wealthy, big business, military, religion and no one else. They have done more to screw the American worker than any other party! So, I won’t be voting for McCain! All he is another Bush clone! That will rape this country and destroy what’s left of it. Where I am not the slightest bit happy with Democrat’s. I will continue to vote for them because they are the least of the evils out there. The Republican’s are far worst lot.
This rumour of McCain’s alleged affair with a lobbyist brings back memories of CNN’s political play of the week for 2005 - when Belinda Stronach dumped her party (the Conservatives) and her boyfriend (Peter MacKay, Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party) at the same time. Belinda Stronach crossed the floor and became a Liberal the day before a Confidence vote which could have brought down the the government. It turns out that this is not the most controversial part of the story.
The Liberals needed one more MP, besides Belinda Stronach, to vote for their budget for the government to stay in power - which left the decision up to Chuck Cadman, an MP not affiliated with any party and who was dying of cancer (he died a few weeks after the vote). Chuck Cadman voted with the Liberals and the government survived. Last night we found out that the reason why Cadman voted with the government is because the Conservative party offended his honour - by offering him a million dollars for his vote.
CNN Political Play of the week:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/20/canada/index.html?iref=newssearch
CADMAN - CTV
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080228/cadman_bribe_AM_080228/20080228?hub=TopStories
CADMAN - CBC
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/02/27/cadman-book.html
If this happens here, how often does it happen in the United States where the amount of money one needs to raise to get reelected is way off the charts! How often are Congressperson votes purchased?
RE: - hey, richm, that was actually a republican congress and senate that passed that law, but bill clinton did sign it.
Oh you are talking about the Telecom act rather than NAFTA. The only ones shocked about NAFTA being renegotiated are the Conservatives - everyone else seems to be having a good laugh about it. Could someone tell me briefly what the Telecom act was about?
RE: - Speaking of Paul Wellstone, does anyone else wonder about his well-timed (for Republicans) death? I still mourn for him.
Luckily we have people like him in Canada - who manage to stay alive. If something happened to an MP, like what happened to Wellstone, we would be hearing about it for years - yet not a peep in the media about Wellstone.
RE: - Having a lobbyist paid by the lobbying company as a major member of his campaign is hardly a recommendation for a Mr. Clean
True enough - though, by the way the story is being covered, people seem not so upset at the idea of McCain being in bed with a lobbyist - as long as there is no sex involved. The difference between the McCain allegations and the Cadman revelations is that the phrase “Criminal Code violation” doesn’t seem to come up at all when one talks about McCain.
It also strikes me as a bit strange that this allegation comes up in the middle of an election campaign when there really isn’t the time to get to the truth of it before a vote.
RE: - Second, the focus must be kept on McCain’s war mongering, and this lobbyist bit is shifting the primary focus away from this major of major issues. / how really slimy the war criminal McCain is.
Sure, McCain is a slimy war criminal, but this has nothing to do with McCain’s service record (not that you said it did, but feel the need to distinguish between the two). What did McCain do after the war? What boards does he sit on? Was McCain ever a lobbyist himself?
* By “service record” I don’t include administrative duties - only field service. If a person is there and gets shot at or drives through a road potentially littered with landmines, we should not take that away from them. It is not here nor there any way.
War runs in McCain’s family.
RALPH 44: Brilliant posting! This goes to the heart of all the other issues being addressed in this thread. We would not have a public so falsely fed on faux filler if it were not for the way the rightwing took over EVERY portal of dis-information making what passes for consensual reality their own fiscal bad joke.
RICH M: I totally agree with you, and I don’t think anyone can make an argument against the TRUTH of the numbers you raise relative to the poitician’s positions. With that being said, RSJ comes off as a LIBRA in seeking to find the middle ground, best way to resolve the awful circumstance that TRUE progressives find themselves in given the sell-out of both parties to corporate interests. Of course this, too, goes back to the arguments against the FCC ruling that turned over the bandwidths to the pre-existing media corporations before effectively negotiating a “tithe-like” fee in the form of 10% air time devoted to public issues such as candidates actual policies and agendas. Now since media costs the most, and candidates require it to run successfully for office, beholden to money (and the lobbies that donate these sums for the usual quid pro quo arrangements) they no longer represent the public. CLINTON was part of this giveaway and it’s an egregious crime against our democracy. I too find something rotten in Denmark as per the degree to which Murdoch helps Hillary. Whatever existed of a democratic republic HAS been sold to the highest bidder and giving away the means to influence the public mindset was playing the role to accessory to a crime against the US and its public interests.
RE: War runs in McCain’s family
Are you talking about lobbying for military contracts or service? Military service runs in a lot of American families.
American politics is strange mostly because the choices are so limited. Its either tweedledee or tweedledum;or,as someone else once put it “which group of billionaires do you want to run the country ?” Big business has done a pretty good job of robbing the ranch here in Canada as well. We have a right wing consevative PM who has muzzled his own members of Parliment and will not”allow” them to speak to media and reporters. Presumably the thick-headed bible thumpers will stick their foot in their mouth and actually reveal what they are thinking! Still,we haven’t slid as far as the states has gone recently with the current collection of leaders in Washington. It has been dark indeed lately, but Frodo will make it to Mount Doom and chuck the ring of power into the boiling cauldron.So fear not.The only thing you have to fear is fear itself.
Obama has really been the only light that has shone into the jaded and bleak wax museem of American politics. I wasn’t aware that Captain Bill signed over so much power to the media moguls.It has changed my opinion of him. The revolution will start when 200 million Americans turn off the TV and stop reading newspapers-tommorow perhaps? Good luck getting rid of these bastards. Be patient it may take a hundred years of civil disobedience
Cheers,
Meke
RSJ (9:01 am) - Your whole post is a string of feeble excuses for why we should ignore the Democrats’ betrayal of the Constitution, & overlook their relentless betrayal of their own voters’ interests. Your bottom line is basically the demand that those to the left of the Dem Party shouldn’t complain too loudly.
You write that candidates must “be prepared to slog around through all kinds of weather and shake hands…and make speeches to people who mainly don’t care…” // Aww, gee. I didn’t realize that. Those poor candidates, they have it so hard. Now (thanks to your profound insights), I see the light at last, and I’m going to forgive them for not trying to stop the war, and for not impeaching Bush & Cheney. I promise, I’ll stop complaining about them, and I’ll even go vote for them again, so they can continue betraying me. (/sarcasm)
It’s a standard argument of Dem Party apologists like yourself to claim that anyone who seriously criticizes Democrats from the left is merely “sitting on the couch and complaining.” Needless to say, if I were praising the Democrats, & helping you make excuses for them, I wouldn’t be just “sitting on the couch.” In that case, I would be “speaking out responsibly and reasonably.” Right?
Your perspective, in other words, is that of a standard liberal. Liberals always fall in line with the Dem Party, and get upset & nervous when those to their left offer substantive criticism. Your position is that no matter what the Dems do, we should make excuses for them, and not criticize them too much. My position, by contrast, is that when they betray us, betray the Constitution, allow the murder of a million innocents in Iraq, and spend a trillion of our dollars on various military boondoggles, that the emphasis should not only be on implacable criticism of them, but on destroying them as a party, and replacing them with a political organization that pursues our goals and defends our interests.
I find it staggering that there are still earnest posters to these politcal forums, such as rtdrury and tumbleweed, respectively, who believe that most Americans still view the Republicans as a legitimate party; and worse, that they won the presidential elections since 2000 (seemingly, because of the deficiencies of the Democrats!).
Does a level of 18% (presumably generous) for Bush’s popularity suggest to you that either is true? If so, there is volumious literature on the role of the machines in those elections, to be found at Bradblog and, more generally, Democratic Underground, which ought to open your eyes.
RE: - Presumably the thick-headed bible thumpers will stick their foot in their mouth and actually reveal what they are thinking!
I think that there is a certain amount of precedence in that regard so that is a very safe presumption. There is a Wikipedia listing for Betty Granger - I wish I could remember the name of the UofW student who asked her the question on Immigration. Sadly, the Republican Presidental candidates have said much worse in the present race and, unlike Granger in 2000, have not felt the same pressure from their own party to drop out of the race.
Ed Broadbent, the originator of the phrase, never specified which party he thought was Tweedle-dee and which party he thought was Tweedle-dum (funny Ed video):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=V9WCNbRJIrk
RE: - Obama has really been the only light that has shone into the jaded and bleak wax museem of American politics.
Out of Obama, Clinton and McCain, Obama seems the best one for the job, but there is too much Jim Jones in the Obama campaign for my taste. All this talk about assassination - makes one suspicious of anyone at an Obama rally that is only moderately enthused about the guy.
If Obama figures that Nader’s entry in the race lost him much needed votes, then he should blame himself for not co-opting Nader’s platform. Nader just announced his running mate and the guy seems to have a history in American politics - what can you tell me about Matt Gonzalez other than the drivel in his wik entry?
A debate over Obama and Clintons comments concerning NAFTA came up in Question Period today - Jack Layton sees it as an “opportunity” and Harper figures it would be a “mistake” - today’s Question Period will be up either tomorrow or Monday.
Harper should join US call to pull the plug on NAFTA, says Council of Canadians …
With leading Democratic contenders Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton openly repudiating the North American Free Trade Agreement for its poor labour and environmental standards, the Council of Canadians is demanding that the Canadian government revisit its own commitment to a trade relationship that puts corporate profits before the public interest and the environment.
“This is an opportunity for our government to recognize that NAFTA and the SPP have undermined our ability to protect the environment, social programs and labour rights,” says Maude Barlow, the national chairperson of the Council of Canadians. “In continuing to defend the existing trade model despite growing public outcry in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, the Harper government is demonstrating that it is a prisoner of corporate lobbying.”
Both Clinton and Obama have declared that they would withdraw from NAFTA within six months after taking office failing a complete renegotiation of the trade deal, including the controversial dispute settlement mechanism.
In contrast, Flaherty touted NAFTA as a source of North American prosperity yesterday and declared that “Canadian companies must continue to profit from the commercial benefits of NAFTA, particularly as they strive to compete in North American and world markets.”
The Council of Canadians will be taking its message to New Orleans in April when it joins other social justice and environmental groups to oppose the SPP Leaders’ Summit bringing together the heads of state of Canada, the United States and Mexico.
http://www.canadians.org/media/trade/2008/27-Feb-08.html
RichM wrote: “RSJ (9:01 am) - Your whole post is a string of feeble excuses for why we should ignore the Democrats’ betrayal of the Constitution, & overlook their relentless betrayal of their own voters’ interests. Your bottom line is basically the demand that those to the left of the Dem Party shouldn’t complain too loudly.”
If you think that, then you missed the whole point of my post — I didn’t say you shouldn’t complain, I just said you should do something about it beyond just carping — run for office yourself and represent the voters’ interests. I was simply giving you a preview of what to expect should you attempt it and should you get elected. And, BTW, I am not a member of any political party, so don’t call me a Dem Party apologist. Excuse me for trying to be fair even to those I disagree with often; I realize you are not restrained in that area.
And, RichM, don’t make assumptions about other people’s politics from a few comments — I was in antiwar marches in the 1960s and being chased by cops with billy clubs and tear gas. Hell, I was arrested and dragged into court on trumped-up political charges. What have you done, aside from misinterpreting what I’ve written?
And, as I said, if you want to destroy the Dem Party — “replacing them with a political organization that pursues our goals and defends our interests” — then you have to stop waiting for someone else to do it for you — put yourself on the line and either run for office or become an activist. All of your mighty words of condemnation are only farting in the wind otherwise.
In the meantime, I think Obama is the best chance we have of electing a president in 2008 who will listen to and enact the voters’ interests and a progressive agenda — so far, you have presented no viable alternative.
Vaudree, thanks for the great info on Canadian politics.
RSJ (7:04 pm) - Rather than discussing the points I’ve raised, you try to convert the discussion into your personal aspersions against my activist history — a subject you know precisely nothing about. You don’t know me; you have no idea what I’ve done, where I’ve been, or what I’m currently involved in. You’re the one “mak(ing) assumptions about other people’s politics from a few comments.”
But even if you did know me, that should not really matter, because we’re not here to compare whose activist dick is bigger than the next guy’s. If I raise a point about the Democratic Party on CD, the idea should be discussed on its own merits. Whatever you arbitrarily choose to imagine about my personal resume is beside the point.
One doesn’t have to be a member of the Dem Party to function as a typical liberal apologist for it. Your comments express an attitude of docile acceptance towards the 2-party system, not opposition to it. Your instinctive position, as shown by your above posts, is to make excuses for Democrats — to have sympathy for how hard their job is; to argue that many of them are “Classic Populist FDR” Democrats; to warn against “painting Democrats with a broad brush,” etc etc. This kind of feeble liberalism encourages others to be likewise docilely accepting of something that is dangerous & harmful to their interests.
” Jim Glover February 27th, 2008 3:58 pm
Mike, Good point but did you ever wonder that if Obama believed what you are saying and made that the issue, I don’t think he would be alive or threatening to win the most powerful post on the planet….
Some folks like us say the truth and get published here on line (thank god) and some folks who get elected don’t say everything that is on their minds until they are in a position to do something about it.
…”
Jim Glover,
I understand that you and many will keep supporting Obama; I also know that it was reported that around 77% of “Americans” supported war on Iraq when it was strongly obvious that the war could never be justified, and that these are two unrelated matters. Yes, they’re unrelated, on the surface anyway; but then maybe only in that sense. After all, MANY “Americans” supported Bill Clinton for two terms, and he was war criminal as of the first; besides being criminal in terms of US economics. Criminal and con as he was, many “Americans” still voted for him; and it’s not a new theme then, nor is it now, though not everyone supporting Obama or even Billary is thinking of their chosen candidates for the next presidency being likely to continue the GWoT wars.
But regardless of what those voters wish to dreamfully think of their candidates, both Obama and Billary actually pledge to continue the war on Iraq, while saying quite absolutely nothing about the war of aggression on Afghanistan. It’s an inherently implied pledge, for it’s explicitly denied; but the latter’s only surface appearance, the [important] substance being what is inherently implied. There’s no way that they can end the war on Iraq and correct the criminality of this war of entirely aggression when maintaining the criminally established US embassy in Iraq, which will require, as they both admit, the maintenance of many US troops there, but, and if they’re not saying this, the criminally established US bases there.
They’re not going to end that war; the real ruling powers aren’t going to permit it, and Congress and the Senate aren’t going to provide any serious opposition to the ruling elites who pull the strings of their puppet US govt. After all, there’s no precedent for believing otherwise, unless we go so far back in US history that it’s basically irrelevant today.
They’re not going to do this, and they’re also not going to end covert US black ops in African countries, in Eastern European and Central Asian countries, and none of which is solely about covert operations. Then we have the urgent need of correcting the criminal act-of-war coup d’etat against Haiti’s democratically elected govt, and plenty more corrections to do; including with respect to terminating all relationships between Monsanto et al and the US govt.
They are NOT going to do these things. The only way that Obama will do [any] of these things if his supporters energetically unite in pressuring him to not fold to the powerful ruling elites.
If Obama tries to do these things, then the rulers of the Dem. Party will obstruct; just like they have been complicit, criminally, in making sure that Kucinich would be excluded from SIX primary campaign debates, for the rulers of the DP do NOT work for The People, but for the rich and powerful ruling elites of the not totally but hidden enough kind; as hidden as they can provide for themselves, just that it even obviously can’t be [totally] hidden.
A [real], authentic president would make sure that the claims of Sibel Edmonds would receive all the honest and thorough investigation, and follow-through, that [needs] to be applied; but this is not going to happen with any of the present DP or RP candidates. They will maintain the criminal cover-up in this case, as well as in plenty of other critical cases; and that is to inherently make themselves criminally complicit with these cover-ups and obstructions of JUSTICE, ‘rule of law’, and protection of the U.S. Constitution and international law.
If they do NOT do these things, then their voters will be included in the genocidal complicity of the next presidency.
After all, it’s not like the country presently has any precedents that would indicate even a serious possibility of the contrary of what I’m saying is most surely going to be the result of the election of a DP or RP candidate for the next presidency; with perhaps the sole exception of Ron Paul, [maybe].
There was NEVER any justification whatsoever for Obama to totally side with Israel; not a single iota of acceptable reason, not one way or another. And the same applies to his complete support for the threat of war of aggression on Iran, which has been within its legitimate rights. And even if Iran was developing nuclear weapons, neither the USA, nor Israel, nor any other country has any moral basis for criticising, so much less reprimanding, Iran.
But the whole of US history has been one of criminal aggression, invasion, occupation, genocide, perpetual repression of the inalienable right of or to sovereignty of the First Nations Peoples of the USA and its various imperialistically aggressed, etc., territories. So I guess “Americans” (as it seems) figure that they’re no worse than their predecessors and therefore think justified in not caring much about ending the USA’s hellbent criminality against humanity.
It’s very common for people to try to find ways of excusing direct guilt and guilt by association. And it’s like a cancer, an active one. Such cancers aren’t visible to the human eye, but are actively destructive nonetheless.
My mother, now 82, has facial cancer and hopefully no more than this, and while we can certainly see that she’s not feeling well, we certainly do not see the cancer. However, if we look in her mouth where the worst part of the cancer development is, then we do see a very grotesque deformation.
The USA has far worse case of cancer.
Now Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, and Mike Gravel are three people who would inspire hope for me; but they’re of course not going to have a remote chance of being elected. That’s okay though, for if I was or am to vote, then it’d have to be for one of these three people; and I certainly don’t mind losing when it’s obvious that the choice is definitely going to lose. It’s either that, or abstaining.
Obama won’t provide [good], but that people wish to believe he will is their privilege, and it’d be foolish to think or dream that this can be altered. We can be enslaved physically, but not in terms of conscience, so not in terms of choices based on matters of conscience.
People dreamed about Bill Clinton and elected him twice; and he’s one of the very worst war criminals in the world today, while having been this by the time his first term ended.
DP and RP, they’re basically one-and-the-same.
As for McCain’s honesty, I just read a little on some key matters about him today and which tell me that he certainly seems honest about siding with continuing the war on Iraq, but while he evidently is not always honest. I wish I had these particular matters memorised, but have forgotten what they are precisely about, and also don’t recall which article this was in.
Otoh, I believe one of the points just came to mind and it’s that while he opposed the use of torture by the Bush administration and related goons, he’s since capitulated. There was another point or two, though.
That capitulation perhaps isn’t a question of dishonesty, per se, but if not, then it’s at least quasi-hypocrisy, too close for comfort. If he, who we all know was a PoW in the Viet Nam war and, as he’s said anyway, tortured during this period, could now capitulate on torture, then he’s definitely not someone I could trust at all. If he can’t stay firm on this, then I’d figure that he could not be hoped to do right about stopping the war on Iraq, etc., either. After all, and as I see it anyway, opposing the practice of torture is the easy issue to oppose; surely being of far less interest to the hidden and real ruling elites than the rich natural resources they plan to gain control of and employ massive genocides to obtain control of; in addition to the military-industry complex certainly not making any significant profits from the practice of torture being applied.
If he can’t spinefully stand against the easier issues needing to be opposed, then ….
What position Obama’s taken on the practice of torture is insignficant, if he’s opposed it, for what’s really crucial is stopping the whole GWoT and the other extreme crimes mentioned in my prior posts.
DP and RP, there’s little difference. GWoT did not start with Bush and Cheney; Bill Clinton and DP provided a major start, while also having continued the progression commenced prior to Bill Clinton’s first election to the presidency.
The DP ruling elites will keep Obama “in check” even if he does try to really end the GWoT, if he is elected to the presidency.
There’s definitely conspiracy in all of this, and it is VAST and powerful.
RichM wrote: “RSJ (7:04 pm) - Rather than discussing the points I’ve raised, you try to convert the discussion into your personal aspersions against my activist history - a subject you know precisely nothing about.”
Exactly what personal aspersions did I cast on your activist history? I asked you what you had done — if you consider that an aspersion, you should check the definition of the word. I stated what I had done; I didn’t speculate on your history. I also replied to your most pertinent points; I didn’t feel it necessary to write a treatise on your every word.
RichM wrote: “You don’t know me; you have no idea what I’ve done, where I’ve been, or what I’m currently involved in. You’re the one ‘mak(ing) assumptions about other people’s politics from a few comments.”‘
Actually that was you, Rich, who made assumptions: You said I was a “Dem Party apologist” just for pointing out a few realities about politics these days. You claimed I was a “standard liberal” and that my “bottom line is basically the demand that those to the left of the Dem Party shouldn’t complain too loudly.” I never said any of that. You also said I “get upset & nervous when those to their left offer substantive criticism.” That’s not true, either. I am often the one making those criticisms, so they would hardly make me nervous or upset. You also stated, “Your position is that no matter what the Dems do, we should make excuses for them, and not criticize them too much.” That is not my position at all. As I said, I was just giving you a realistic evaluation of the way politics works in this country — I wasn’t saying it should work that way or that we shouldn’t have a third party to challenge the two major parties.
RichM wrote: “But even if you did know me, that should not really matter, because we’re not here to compare whose activist dick is bigger than the next guy’s.”
So, you really have no background of activism beyond posting snotty comments on threads like this then. I also don’t need you to arrogantly instruct me on why I’m here.
RichM wrote: “If I raise a point about the Democratic Party on CD, the idea should be discussed on its own merits. Whatever you arbitrarily choose to imagine about my personal resume is beside the point.”
I have no idea what your personal resume is, and don’t really care at this point. I also am not going to let you frame what I should or shouldn’t be discussing in my posts, Mr. Luntz.
RichM wrote: “One doesn’t have to be a member of the Dem Party to function as a typical liberal apologist for it. Your comments express an attitude of docile acceptance towards the 2-party system, not opposition to it.”
Thank you, Rich. What time is Mount Olympus open daily for more of that rare insight? Your second sentence is pure bullshit. I said that all we have that is viable this time around is Obama, not that I discounted or disapproved of a third party, or that we should docilely accept a permanent two-party system. In fact, if you have a realistic way to get a third party candidate elected president next November, then why don’t you share it with us?
RichM wrote: “Your instinctive position, as shown by your above posts, is to make excuses for Democrats - to have sympathy for how hard their job is; to argue that many of them are “Classic Populist FDR” Democrats; to warn against “painting Democrats with a broad brush,” etc etc. This kind of feeble liberalism encourages others to be likewise docilely accepting of something that is dangerous & harmful to their interests.”
You know what, Rich, that’s a bunch of crap too, as are your ‘feeble’ and ignorant attempts to equate Obama, Hillary and McCain as three heads of the same body. There is no way you can prove your hypothesis that they will all act alike if elected president, yet you continue to promulgate that message. To reinterate: I simply presented the reality of holding political office in the present environment, and challenged you to run for office if you don’t like the way the people currently in power are doing things. That apparently hit a nerve with you, as you’ve been trying to throw up a smokescreen of egotistical bombast and pompous outrage since that post.
Again, I invite you to provide your realistic way to destroy the Democratic Party and put into the Oval Office a true progressive you approve of by next November. Nader and McKinney just are not going to make it, and even you know that.
I won’t expect a specific reply, because I don’t think you have one.
Incidentally, should your house be plagued by an infestation of cockroaches, don’t burn it down to get rid of them. There are better ways.
RSJ - if you are not Canadian, that you stumbled on the reason why Harper is censoring his own MPs is amazing.
RE: - The only way that Obama will do [any] of these things if his supporters energetically unite in pressuring him to not fold to the powerful ruling elites.
Obama talks of moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. I think that Obama is more likely to give in to our pressure than the others.
RE: - And it’s like a cancer, an active one. Such cancers aren’t visible to the human eye, but are actively destructive nonetheless.
RE: - Incidentally, should your house be plagued by an infestation of cockroaches, don’t burn it down to get rid of them. There are better ways.
There is a part of me which nods in agreement over both the cancer and cockroach metaphors (with a slight preference for the not burning down the house one that there is a way of getting rid of the bad without destroying the whole country) and a part of me who is not so sure. Was reading Shock Doctrine last night and she talked of when ideas were presented as cancer (and during the Rwandan genocide the slaughtered group were referred to as cockroaches):
In Chapter Four, Naomi Klein mentions a UN resolution which included group slaughter based on political affiliation its definition of genocide - that it can be genocide when a group is killed, not because of race, ethnicity or religion but because of ideological differences (pp. 119-120). Naomi Klein then goes on to point out the danger of any political or economic movement which “requires a monopoly of ideology” and perceives competing ideologies as “distortions”, “filth” or “disease” which need to be amputated - either from the person or from society. In passing, Naomi Klein mentions Residential Schools, a practice which many First Nations leaders describe as “cultural genocide” because its purpose was to strip Native children of their language and cultural identity.
On page 135, Naomi Klein quotes “Fritz Klein,” a Nazi doctor who shares her last name (and her father’s profession) justifying the slaughter of those who, like Naomi Klein herself, were born Jewish. There were many in the Nazi regime who could have supplied Naomi Klein with a similar quote who did not share her last name, so this inclusion of a villain who shared her own surname seems deliberate. Similarily, in an interview on The Hour with George Stroumboulopoulos, Naomi Klein states that her book is not about preaching her ideology and that she agrees with all criticisms of her work – presumably including criticisms levied by those who hate everything Naomi Klein stands for. This chapter seems to be about Naomi Klein facing the possibility that any ideology can become corrupted, in the fashion which she describes, when it perceives itself incapable of coexisting in a society with other ideologies.
RE: - If he, who we all know was a PoW in the Viet Nam war and, as he’s said anyway, tortured during this period, could now capitulate on torture, then he’s definitely not someone I could trust at all. If he can’t stay firm on this, then I’d figure that he could not be hoped to do right about stopping the war on Iraq, etc., either. After all, and as I see it anyway, opposing the practice of torture is the easy issue to oppose;
Yesterday’s Question Period is up. Doesn’t Congress have something similar that has transcripts on line?
edit/find put in layton or nafta to find the references
Isn’t there something about our Liberal Party which reminds you of Bill Clinton? David Emerson (who switched parties because he was promised a cabinet position) is the one who “negotiated” softwood lumber - caving into American interests snapping defeat out of the jaws of victory.
Thursday, February 28, 2008 (NAFTA References)
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canada is a trading nation, and rules that are balanced and respected for trade are very important to the global climate, but we have had an unbalanced North American Free Trade Agreement for years now, which has benefited the large and powerful corporations far more than ordinary Canadians.
Now we have leading candidates in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who are saying that NAFTA should be renegotiated. I hope the Prime Minister would agree with me that this is an opportunity for Canada to put to the forefront reforms to the environmental and labour aspects of these trade agreements that could benefit working families.
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have learned to take with a grain of salt what opposition politicians say about trade agreements during election campaigns. We all know about the Liberal promise to rip up NAFTA some 15 years ago.
This government has been clear. We view NAFTA as a very positive agreement for all three of the countries, for Canada and the United States in particular, under which we have had tremendous growth in trade and tremendous growth in opportunity. Of course, if any American government ever chose to make the mistake of opening it, we would have some things we would want to talk about as well.
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we can agree that the Liberals did promise to fix NAFTA. They broke that promise, but that does not mean we should turn our backs on the opportunities to bring labour and environmental standards into that agreement. They are fundamentally important.
However, for too long we have been importing pollution and exporting jobs under this agreement. We put our resources, like energy and bulk water, at risk and when it comes to pay and wages, they have been frozen or they have fallen for most Canadians.
Why will the Prime Minister not take the lead here, exercise some sovereignty and bring about change to the agreement that will be good for workers?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, under this government and under our trade arrangements, real disposable incomes of Canadians are up. Employment is up. That is a trend we want to keep going.
As I said, I think NAFTA is a solid agreement for both of our countries. I would caution about jumping to a conclusion about what a future president may do. If a future president actually did want to open up NAFTA, which I highly doubt, then Canada would obviously have some things we would want to discuss as well.
…..
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, regarding the NAFTA file, both candidates for the Democratic nomination have taken a position that poses a serious threat to our access to our primary export market. Since 2005, the Bloc Quebecois has been urging the government to enter into discussions with the European Union in order to diversify our markets. The Quebec government fully agrees.
What is the government waiting for to begin serious discussions with the European Union in order to conclude a free trade agreement?
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to remind the hon. member that this government entered into the first free trade agreement in the last six years with the European Free Trade Association.
We have been carrying on discussions with the European Union with an eye to a deeper trade arrangement with the European Union at the first leaders level at the Canada-European Union summit. We are pushing a Canada-EU free trade agreement and that will continue to be our position. We are working closely, diplomatically and in other ways.
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the time comes to talk free trade with Colombia, the government goes full speed ahead, even though no one here wants such an agreement. However, when the time came to talk to the European Union in Davos, the minister had but a few words to say between the dessert and the cheese course.
What is preventing the government from entering into serious negotiations with Europe, as called for by the Quebec government?
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, CPC): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would speak to Premier Charest and to my counterpart in Quebec, he would know that we are working very closely with the Quebec government.
We are working closely with leaders in industry. We are working closely with other provinces. We are working closely with nation states within the European Union with the express purpose of furthering a Canada-EU trade agreement.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/housechamberbusiness/chambersittings.aspx?View=H&Parl=39&Ses=2&Language=E&Mode=1