McCain will win (imo) because the majority of the people are not going to vote for someone that is going to raise taxes and increase government spending. You can spin it all you want but lower taxes increases government revenue, higher taxes do not. McCain will eventually push that he will decrease overall government spending, the reason he has voted against many spending measures because the bill never shows how spending will be paid for.

"tax cuts creating massive federal deficits" The federal deficits are from over spending by congress, we pay enough in taxes. I have to live within my means why doesn't the U.S. government?

~HUCK~ It's almost impossible for anything to sink into concrete.

kitty tc,

Your arguments -- "A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain" -- or else what's also heard quite often -- "A vote for Nader is a wasted vote" -- are both presumptive and arrogant.

First of all, it's the height of arrogance to claim that someone who favors Nader is obliged, instead, to vote for Obama.

... Obama is a war candidate. I don't vote for war candidates.

... Obama is beholden to AIPAC. I don't vote for candidates beholden to AIPAC.

... Obama is a corporatist candidate, I oppose corporatism (corporatism being what Mussolini in the 1930s said was synonymous with fascism).

These are just a few reasons why I favor Nader (or McKinney) over Obama.

Also, it's not that the Democrats and the Republicans are the same, that there's no difference between these two oligarchic parties. ... There *are* differences. ... It's rather that the Democratic Party will always be "somewhat better" than the Republicans -- but while that's been going on, for lo these many decades, the political consensus in the United States has moved dramatically to the right!

How did that happen? ... Who is responsible for that dramatic move to the right? ... Wouldn't it be the people who voted for the Democratic Party -- the lesser of the two evils -- as the Democratic Party, along with the political consensus, moved year-after-year, election-after-election to the political-right?

If you vote for Obama, you're voting for a war candidate -- after Obama ran in the primaries as a so-called "peace candidate"!
(Oh, did I also mention that I don't vote for political opportunists, especially when it comes to war-mongering?)

-- Obama supports the war in Iraq, saying now, post-primaries, that if elected he'll stay in Iraq as long as the commanders in the field say we should stay there.

-- Obama wants to escalate the war in Afghanistan.

-- Obama's now says that, if necessary, he'll invade Pakistan.

-- Obama now says that, if necessary, he'll invade Iran. And that no weapons are off the table; meaning: the use of nuclear weapons is a military option.

These are positions that are identical with those of McCain and Bush. ... That doesn't bother you?

Obama, McCain and Bush have all stated that no weapon is "off the table," that the use of nuclear weapons is a military option. (Oh, did I tell you that I don't vote for crazy people; for people who want to play "nuclear chicken" with other countries; for people who play chess with the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.)

You're ok with a policy of nuclear brinksmanship?

You're ok with two corporatist candidates, Corporate America having systematically raped the planet of its natural resources; with neither corporatist candidate having any meaningful plan whatsoever to stop this earth-strangling, species-suicide madness?

But, again, there *are* difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. But

... not on the issue of the military-industrial complex (they both support it);

... not on the issue of the Pentagon's budget (they're both in favor of raising it);

... not on the issue of US imperialism (they both support it, 100%);

... not on the issue of US policy toward Israel (they're both in agreement on that);

... not on the issue of the use of nuclear weapons (they're both for it);

... not on the issue of corporate dominance of the economy (they both speak for Corporate America).

These similarities between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party *dwarf* whatever differences exist between them.

There are, however, needless to say, quite dramatic differences on the above issues between Nader and Obama, as well as McKinney and Obama.

I have this cockeyed idea that if I were to vote for an avowed war candidate that I would have a moral responsibility for any war that that candidate engaged in. You know, as in: over 1,000,000 Iraqis already dead. And counting.

And your response to that is: "But you have no choice, there is no alternative. You have to vote for Obama, even though he supports a continuation of the war in Iraq." (Even though over a million Iraqis have died as a result of the War; even though the US is spending $15 billion a month on the War.)

What if the progressive/revolutionary movements of the past had that attitude, that is to say, T.I.N.A. -- "There Is No Alternative"?

... Women wouldn't have the vote.

... Blacks wouldn't have any civil rights.

... The environment would be even more polluted than it is now.

... Gays would be even more oppressed than they are today.

... Eastern Europe would still be under Soviet domination.

.... India would still be a colony of England.

... The British would rule over the American colonies.

... Miners would still be living in "company towns."

... South Africa would still be under apartheid rule.

... Automobiles won't have seat belts.

... Workers wouldn't be allowed to organize or strike.

... Consumers would be even less protected than they are now.

And how did all those consumer and worker and individual protections against the rapacious, predatory nature of corporations erode over the past 40 years? ...

Answer: By people -- out of fear and short-sightedness -- allowing the political spectrum to move drastically to the right -- with one cause for that move being their belief in T.I.N.A. "There Is No Alternative" -- you *must* vote for the lesser of the two evils.

TINA Also loves it when you say: "You can't fight City Hall." Or when you believe that "Nothing will change, so screw it! I'll just sit on my ass and hope Mistah Bossman Obama will save me."

This is what those in power count on -- negativity, pessimism, apathy, being resigned to what is, as opposed to WHAT CAN BE.

They *count* on it -- your fear, your short-sightedness, your pessimism and your cynicism.

So please don't tell people who they should vote for, or who *owes* who their vote. ...
Tell us your reasons for voting for Obama -- minus the lesser-of-the-two-evils clause (if that's even possible!) Then, if someone agrees with you, fine, they'll vote for Obama; if not, they won't. ...

But if your only reason for voting for Obama is that he's the lesser of the two evils, then the political consensus will continue to move to the right. And when that happens -- and it most certainly will -- then you'll have only yourself to blame.

One other thought ...

Throughout history, all broad-based progressive movements have been preceded by ideas introduced from the radical fringes of the political spectrum. ... After a while those fringe, radical positions become part of the broad-based movement's agenda and, eventually, become part of the political mainstream. ...

For example: anti-lynching laws, recognition of China in the UN, integration of the military, integration of schools, women getting the vote, environmental laws and regulations, civil rights for blacks, civil rights for gays, the right to strike, the right to a safe workplace, Social Security, the eight-hour day, an end to child labor, the abolition of slavery.) All these political changes were preceded by the (fearful) cry: "But it'll never happen!"

Note, too, that many of these changes involved blood, sacrifice and extraordinary personal courage. ... All the third party movement is asking you to do is vote a certain way.

You can even wear a wig and a pair of Groucho Marx eyebrows when you go to vote. JUST DO IT!

mia, you are one of the few independents who recognize the obvious: collapse is just around the corner. The only true measure of transformational change or an order of magnitude that the sheeple will finally wake up.

One thing will end the war and the enormous amount of troops stationed all over the globe: our debt. The financial collapse of the federal government is coming--the process may begin as soon as the Olympics are over and the Chinese find a better place for their money. Of course, before the collapse, we'll call on the privately-owned Federal Reserve to print more federal reserve notes to keep gov spending running.

Remember, we've promised our retirees $99.5 Trillion in benefits that have not been paid for (the annual GDP of the US is about $16 Trillion).

Like I noted above, I don't care about Obama;s religion, nor his eating habits, nor his skin color, nor his wealth, nor his background, nor how he crafts his speeches or words. What I do care about is his RECORD. And His RECORD is appalling as noted by the numerous demonstrations of fact presented here and elsewhere. Why does that not sink in for people?

"OBAMA DAMMED"
Or, The Real Reason Obama's Approval Ratings Are Running So Far Behind the Percentages Favoring Democratic Candidates Generally

I have spoken to dozens of friends, family, clients and acquaintances, both Democrat and Republican, who freely admit Bush and all around him have been a complete and utter disaster. They no longer even try to defend any portion of what has happened thanks to the Neocons even if they have been life long conservatives. They seem downright embarrassed in fact for their complicity in having put such self centered, irresponsible, greedy juveniles in office. Yet, as angry as they are at the destruction and degradation wrought by years of incompetence and arrogance, they unshakably insist they will vote for anyone rather than Obama.

It gets really interesting when I question why in light of the fact that their only other serious choice, McCain, promises to perpetuate most if not exactly 100% of the same policies, pursuits and partisanship as Bush and Cheney and their minions.

When closely quizzed, some cite outright falsehoods like Obama supposedly is a really Muslim and they cling to that belief tenaciously despite abundant evidence to the contrary. Nothing shakes that excuse not to vote for Obama, even though the principles of this country are that all religions deserve equality.

Others insist Obama is rich, not a common man, even though he comes from very humble beginnings. Well, that excuse is slightly true for once, but they pointedly ignore McCain's far greater riches (thanks to a rich replacement wife), allowing McCain to accumulate more houses than most men have shoes. Somehow, that's "totally different" and okay apparently because there are photos of McCain manning a backyard barbecue grill. The sort of guy they'd like to have a beer with. Sorta like Bush, I guess. Didn't they learn anything?

There is lots of criticism of Obama's perceived personality offered as reasons to avoid him. The scoff Obama crowd complaints range from his choice of particular leafy green vegetables (arugula versus iceberg letturce) to whether or not he wears a flag pin 24/7, as if his choice of salad or supporting the flag production industry we shipped to China has anything to do with either ability to be President or patriotism. Such criticism often comes from those who have been observed consuming the same food and who never volunteered for military service to demonstrate their own supposed Nathan Hale/John Adams/Patrick Henry patriotism. (Of course, there are apparently only about two tests left in our current abbreviated definition of "patriotism," ... whether you have a "Support the Troops" bumper sticker on your SUV and whether you slavishly, uncritically, accept everything you are told by those in power, which would be quite a surprise to Hale, Adams and Henry.)

Still others insist that Obama is probably an elitist, pointy-headed intellectual. It is hard to argue with the fact that Obama graduated among the top of his class in arguably the top law school in the country and headed its Law Review. That's a remarkable feat in comparison to McCain's lazy trolling near the bottom of his class at the Academy. What is not clear is why those opposed to Obama no longer think it would be a good idea to have the proven brilliant get a chance at leadership as opposed to the mental midgets we have been afflicted with for so long.

Let's be clear. There are plenty of substantive things for which Obama deserves criticism. He was definitely not my personal first or even fifth choice. But, the "explanations" of those anti-Obama devotees who simultaneously admit Republicans, including McCain, have continually screwed up for long enough are so lame and implausible when examined, that I cannot help but assume there is an unadmitted hidden agenda, one that goes against the grain of everything this country and its governing documents stand for - - Obama's black and McCain isn't.

Besides the desperately needed change from years of debacle, you would think we as adult voters would recognize that electing someone of a different hue or, for that matter, someone of a truly different religion (even if Obama actually wasn't a Christian practitioner), would show the world for once that we really do practice what we preach, especially when most of the world we have to live in is of a different color and religious belief. Why then can't we do that at least one time in our entire history, especially when the white guys running things have done so badly lately? Why can't we give someone else a chance? Is it because the Obama opponents secretly don't really want a black man in the White House?

When asked that question point blank, they hem and haw and bristle and proclaim that they are not racist, that they don't personally fear the Blacks, that the amount of melanin in skin would never influence their decision on voting day. On the other hand, they can't seem to ever quite bring themselves to say they would actually want a black President even if it was someone other than the feared Obama running. When asked about Colin Powell or Condalisa Rice, many kinda choke on the words, loudly and repeatedly just keep declaring the mantra they have no prejudice themselves.

The vehemence of their rejection of the very question about race as a reason for their opposition to Obama combined with the weakness of any other explanations unfortunately speaks for itself. I hope they are not a majority come election day. Our nation deserves better reasons if we are going to accumulate for another four years the mucking mess we are shoveling onto our grandchildren.

[more irreverence at resistence-is-possible.blogspot.com]

He he he. This is funny: "The 3rd party cannot end Evil and corruption since they won't win one seat anywhere, can only stop Obama and keep the neo cons in complete power." With the Democrats "impressive" victory in 2006 we have Democrats giving BushCheney Co, Inc. everything they want. The "neo cons" ARE IN "COMPLETE POWER" now thanks to Democrats. Obama will be more of the same. Pull the Democratic Party and Republican Party needle out of your arm. Stop pushing the plunger for the fix that will never satisfy. Run Ralph. Run!

This has got to be the stupidest comment ever posted on Common Dreams:

"One thing is for sure: the REAL LEFT doesn't take Republican dollars or support any one who does."

The 'Two Party' system as it is lovingly referred to takes hundreds of millions of dollars from numerous corporations that have been inimical to every progressive cause one can name or identify in our entire history. The same corporations like coal (to name one but you can insert your favorite into the blank) fund the campaigns of Obama and McCain. That is an undisputed FACT! It is called hedging your bets. This quote above represents DENIAL of extreme proportions. Some people are so deeply mired in their own unconscious psychological dysfunctions they tend to speak out their ass.

Again, for all the TRUE PROGRESSVIES, if you are interested in who owns Obama's loyalties when it comes to the environment. Take a look at what the Obama Sheele don't want you to know:

#

Well, here are some facts on Obama's record with comment from various authentic environmentalists with knowledge of the issue. Parry repudiates his own thesis by failing to go deeper into Obama's environmental history/ Record. And what follows is a snapshop of that record:

In May of 1998, Obama voted for a Bill condemning the Kyoto Treaty while in the Illinois Senate.

Obama pays lip service to the issue of environmental sustainability (no argument here) saying that climate change is "one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation." Yet while he was an Illinois state Senator he supported numerous Bills drafted on behalf of the Coal Industry according to legislative records. He also acknowledged his very strong support for coal during his run for the US Senate in 2004 by affirming in a speech, "There is always going to be a role for coal."

Furthermore, Obama's campaign has accepted contributions from the coal industry to the tune of $539,597.00 for both Presidential and Senate campaigns as reported by the Center for Responsive Politics.

A key feature of Obama's environmental plan calls for "technologies to reduce coal emissions." But any authentic environmentalist will tell you of the scope of obfuscation in his statement: in the words of Meg Boyle (Global Warming Policy expert for Green Peace) recently noted, "Those technologies are risky and expensive" and "They cannot deliver in time to avoid the most dangerous impacts of climate change." Nor are they support by the Coal Industry who would need to implement them to be effective. Obama's environmental agenda is what is called "green washing" of which he and his handlers have become masters. The lip service environmentalists you might find on this site believe the tripe ad nausea.

Frank O'Donnell, President of the non-partisan Clean Air Watch noted that Obama is "Trying to straddle two political irreconcilable positions: taking decisive action against global warming while keeping a healthy coal industry" and "Obama's record certainly suggests that environmentalists aren't going to be calling the shots in his Administration without input from the [coal] industry."

In the Illinois State Senate Obama cast the following votes:

1997, he voted to divert sales taxes to fund grants to reopen closed mines.

2001, Voted for legislation that offered 3.5 billion in loan guarantees to build coal fired power plants with no concomitant protections to control carbon emissions.

2003, he voted to allow 300 million in taxpayer backed bonds to build or expand coal fired power plants

In 2005 in the US Senate, Obama voted for a Bill opposed by most Democrats which contained 9 billion in Coal subsidies.

In 2007, Obama sponsored a Bill calling for 8 billion in subsidies to a technology to convert coal to liquid fuel which the Sierra Club said that liquid coal, "releases almost double the global warming emissions per gallon as regular gasoline."

Obama's Presidential campaign asserts his views on coal, nuclear, and bio fuels. All of which are hostile to our Earth Mother. Nuclear has never resolved the spent fuel problem, i.e., radioactive waste outlives the containers they are stored in by hundreds of years, and the current political solution is to bury the waste. With regard to bio fuels, as more arable land transitions to higher paying crops for bio fuels, thus taking away land for food crops, food prices will soar, and worldwide starvation increase. Bio fuels also create as many unsustainable results as fossil fuels.

Obama, like McCain are both against the environment and whose policy objectives will diminish life on planet Earth. Hope may get a lot of mileage in the belt way where most of the herd feeds from the same polluted trough, but it has nothing to do with the reality of Obama and his contradictory and anti environmental record.

I guess I hit a nerve.

But as usual the pretenders got it backwards. Obama and the Democratic Party faithful follow the Republican play book to the letter. Bush and Cheney say jump and Obama and his faithful followers ask "how high?"

Kitty is right on,

You follow Rush's and the Republican orders like you are a tool.

The FISA bill does not give immunity to Bush... I guess you Don't like that.

We have all been spied on before I was born. At least this new bill gives the court some oversight and if your man McCain gets in he will put a signing statement on everything that your boss Rush is afraid of..
You are a tool of the right wing and if that is the "Real Left" you are welcome to it!

Huck:

So your solution to these Republican policies that Democrats failed to stop is...

...elect more Republicans.

You mind explaining how the fuck that's an effective strategy for anything except electing Republicans?

The turd party people cannot claim their candidates will win -- they don't even bother to try to hide it anymore. They know that Nader or McKinney WILL NOT BE PRESIDENT. They don't even pretend to have a winning strategy.

The turd party people cannot claim that their votes and their candidates don't help Republican candidates. The Republicans know it, they openly strategize about using Nader to split the opposition vote and donate money and resources to help him do it.

That's right, folks, NADER TAKES MONEY AND SUPPORT FROM REPUBLICAN ORGANIZATIONS. He's a sellout. He has knowingly and cynically conspired and colluded with the most regressive, destructive, abhorrent political forces in this country, without the slightest shred of shame or remorse. And that's not ancient history. It's this very election cycle.

Nader, and his supporters, are Republican allies. People telling you to vote Nader are traitors with Republican money in their pockets. Nader himself has Republican money in his pockets.

We know that Republicans have donated funds and support to boost Nader, to use as a tactical weapon against their opponents. How many of those dollars and supporters are here? Which ones among the Nader boosters here have received that money, which of them are those supporters wearing a different mask, and which are merely duped followers?

One thing is for sure: the REAL LEFT doesn't take Republican dollars or support anyone who does.

Huck:

So your solution to these Republican policies that Democrats failed to stop is...

...elect more Republicans.

You mind explaining how the fuck that's an effective strategy for anything except electing Republicans?

The turd party people cannot claim their candidates will win -- they don't even bother to try to hide it anymore. They know that Nader or McKinney WILL NOT BE PRESIDENT. They don't even pretend to have a winning strategy.

The turd party people cannot claim that their votes and their candidates don't help Republican candidates. The Republicans know it, they openly strategize about using Nader to split the opposition vote and donate money and resources to help him do it.

That's right, folks, NADER TOOK MONEY AND SUPPORT FROM REPUBLICAN ORGANIZATIONS. He's a sellout. He has knowingly and cynically conspired and colluded with the most regressive, destructive, abhorrent political forces in this country, without the slightest shred of shame or remorse. And that's not ancient history. It's this very election cycle.

Nader, and his supporters, are Republican allies. People telling you to vote Nader are traitors with Republican money in their pockets. Nader himself has Republican money in his pockets.

We know that Republicans have donated funds and support to boost Nader, to use as a tactical weapon against their opponents. How many of those dollars and supporters are here? Which ones among the Nader boosters here have recieved that money, which of them are those supporters wearing a different mask, and which are merely duped followers?

One thing is for sure: the REAL LEFT doesn't take Republican dollars or support anyone who does.

Obama voted for the Bush Cheney Energy Bill, and according to the logic above I guess that makes him a Republican Troll.

Democrats capitulated on habeus Corpus, as they did on FISA, I guess that makes all the Democrats who supported those Bills Republican trolls.

Rather than filibuster Alito and Roberts Democrats joined with Republicans and gave life time appointments to two extremist, I guess that make all those who allowed it Republican Trolls.

Obama is in bed with the Coal Industry taking 1/2 a million in cash from that industry, I guess that makes him a Republican troll.

The fact is that the Republican Trolls are the Democratic Party and their nominee who (as Rich noted) enact all their extreme judge nominees without filibuster, and other extreme legislation. With very few exceptions, they rubber stamped the invasion of Iraq. They rubber stamped the Israeli invasion of Lebanon creating a massive humanitarian nightmare for non combatants. The looked the other way on Torture. They funded Iraq after promising to end it in 2006. They gave us a minimum wage Bill instead of a Living Wage bill. And on and on it goes.

Truth be told Kitty is on of the great Republican Trolls on this site as is her candidate Obama.

The REAL LEFT understands this.

RichM basically said "The Democrats and Republicans are the same!" and also said "I'm really not a Republican shill out to torpedo the opposition, honest!"

The mere suggestion that there is no difference between the parties, after the last 8 years of Bush and facing the prospect of 4 more years at least of McCain, is laughable to the point it's not even worth arguing.

It does, however, eloquently address the second point. After all, nobody can cling to a talking point and repeat it over and over long after it's been debunked and discredited and destroyed like a Republican. If it walks and talks like an elephant, it probably is one. Especially when they advocate a position they don't even try to deny will help the Republican candidate.

But hey, we're supposed to ignore that Limbaugh has openly called for Republicans to support Nader ballot efforts, and that Republican groups donate money to Nader's campaign, and that everyone who isn't utterly willfully ignorant knows that Nader votes help the Republican candidate. How stupid do they think we are?

Moreover, they've stopped even trying to claim that their green messiah will ever win. They know we've seen through that one so thoroughly that it's not even worth rehashing anymore. So now it's about "principle" or "long term strategy" or any other excuse than what it really is, which is SPLITTING THE LEFT-WING VOTE TO BENEFIT THE CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN.

That's what it boils down to. They don't even bother to conceal anymore that a vote for Nader / third party is a Republican vote. They just make excuses and bizarrely convoluted claims that voting Republican by proxy is somehow the progressive thing to do.

WAR = PEACE

ELITIST PLUTOCRACY = POPULISM

CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN = PROGRESSIVE

Nice and Orwellian, isn't it? And some of you continue to fall for it.

I won't stop calling out the Republican trolls for what they are, and I'm glad to see others waking up to their game. A month or two ago, I was one of the only few not drinking their kool-aid. Now, there are several. The red tide is turning. The sheep suits worn by the Republican wolves in our midst are beginning to lose their ability to disguise.

And it couldn't happen a moment too soon.

I guess for me it comes down to this -- I am accused of murder. I am innocent, but the state has stacked the deck against me. Evidence has been fabricated, witnesses have been paid off, and they have loaded the jury pool. I'll never get a fair trial, and there is no appeals system should I be convicted. A murder conviction will get me a life sentence in a maximum security prison that is full of the most violent and depraved people in society. Or possibly the death penalty. The DA has offered me a deal -- plea to a lesser crime and get 90 days house arrest and 5 years probation, plus resources to get my record cleared. I'm choosing the latter. I might be standing up for my principles by refusing the deal, but that's not a lot of comfort hen I'm getting gang-raped and beaten in prison. My first choice, not being charged with anything, just is not going to happen, so I'm going to take whatever path is shortest and least painful.

Others seem confused about the difference between building a PARTY and demonstrating the size of a MOVEMENT, so their criticisms are way off the mark. Heck, even votes for the Libertarians (Barr) are part of this same movement. They certainly are with us on opposition to the WAR and opposition to NAFTA, WTO, et al. And they share our deep concern about Personal Privacy issues.

Hear! Hear! Well Said! (Huck 11:01 am)

Review the Obama voting record. Pick out the half-dozen or so issues most important to YOU. Check how Obama voted. After all, that is where the rubber hits the road. As has been said, Obama stinks on environmental sustainability issues (nuclear, coal, bio fuel) and we all know where he is on The Patriot Act and its various manifestations. I am also very concerned about his apparent fealty to Israel (same with Clinton). Also don't forget that the winner of this election can (but of course should NOT) benefit from the precedents set by GWB - signing statements and such.

It looks highly unlikely that Nader will get a ballot line with his name on it in my state (Oregon) and I have no confidence that write-in votes will be acknowledged at all in this state, so if the Nader name is not there, I'll be voting for McKinney and for other Greens wherever they appear down the ballot.

By the way, last I looked, Nader had submitted required signatures in well over 40 states even in cases where he had to go to court to challenge the rules (for who could collect signatures) in several states. I think he has won all of those circuit court cases. He's been busy and he's done his homework.

WSWS,
I'm Back!
Ok from your last post to me the bottom line is you label me as cynical. Here is my take on what I believe not what you think I believe and do and Act.

I have hope that we can stop the slide to Fascism to the right.

Hope not Cynicism!

Your analysis about 3rd parties in history misses the point that it was the people who marched in the streets.. all Progressive, liberal Communist socialist, civil rights anti war groups and just plain progressive and even some middle road people, not any one party like the Greens or non existent "3rd party" ... I am not cynical, I am hopeful that Obama will win and he will be the first stage in stopping the Neo Con right wing push. First things first!

If you are a Socialist you should know that when you start calculations numbers about 3 5 10 percent of the vote, it is meaningless if the neo cons win again. Al Gore and scientists say at the rate we are goin and with war mongers in control, projecting decades into the future like you are to build a 3rd party movement, it will be too late. the time to unite for a better world is Now! Time to Face the urgent needs Socialist must face. Stop the right wing movement is the need now.

Obama will give us a chance to stop bashing each other and then work on uniting the 3rd parties.

Of course he will disappoint that is a given! Just look at the mess we are in...but if you want a Socialist influence, Hey the right wing nuts think he is a Commie terrorist, so he couldn't be the Republican stooge that so many posters here accuse him of...total nonsense.

You speak of the "3rd Party" movement as if it is real..it is not real there are many parties and they all work against each other and they don't unite because of your strategy just wants to concentrate on killing the Dems and giving us the worst. Dem progressives like Denis and Wexler and many others need your support to elect more like them. If you waste your vote on one of the 3rd parties now that are working against there own interests (SOLIDARITY) you unknowingly undercut and stab in the back forward movement and the Left in general. (Not your intension) I hope
It is this blaming all Democrats for the fact that your strategy has failed throughout history in the USA because you are not trying to unite the people to have more-power, you are into dividing the left... the greens vote for a green an independent vote for the independent Nader votes for Nader and on and on , ,,and you have the nerve to tell me that this is making the 3rd party (which doesn't even exist) stronger!

What your idea is doing is keeping the power elite in control.... When you start working to unite progressives (not that we all should agree on everything) but first job is to weaken the war mongers.
We can't have a perfect world, but if you don't help get more progressives elected you are in the way of a strong progressive movement The world 's political pendulum is swinging to the left and the result of your failed strategy is to slow it down and push it back to the right, Down and backwards for the people.

It won't matter if all the 3rd parties together get 20 percent of the vote! This is not Europe with a proportional system... this is the winner take all USA. Face reality or be powerless! Face it that your goal of 20 percent of a divided opposition means nothing if that 20 percent is not united with the progressives now in government who need your help to move to a more progressive future step by sep in stages....

If these folks on CD who want McCain to win so they can march in the streets get McCain they will regret it and so will the whole planet....

All I am asking progressives to do is get Real face reality and unite for power to the people. Parties are a distraction from the fact that there is only one government and it can go regressive to McCain, or more progressive Obama.

Your goal of 20 percent of a divided left working against each other is Rove's Dream and they will continue to own us with your failed strategy. I agree the movements of the past did much good ...they were from the progressives as a whole many Dems and some Republicans too... not just a 3rd party that is a made up name.. there is no "3rd party" just a bunch of well meaning folks whose anger at their powerlessness makes them Cynical. The Left is now in a fantasy world. Your strategy is a historical failure in the USA.

This is not Europe with different systems... this is winner take all USA, One government with a left and a right with 2 big leagues who's votes count because our evolved system of different state election laws cannot be changed by voting Green or Nader. Face reality, unite progressives, stop the slide to fascism... I am probably asking too much for a folk singer.

starofthesea, that be as it is, I have no intention of either voting my fear of McCain, or accepting Obama as the lesser evil of the two. From my perspective they are both equally bad. And I base that not on Obama's speeches (which I find no argument with) but on his RECORD which is just a egregious as McCain. E.G., I posted a number of positions on Obama's environmental record. Obama also voted for the Bush/Cheney Energy Bill back during his first or second year in congress. Now he presents himself as a born again environmentalist while acting as if he has no relationship with the coal, nuclear, and bio fuel industries. I vote for the people who represent my values and right now that is Nader and the Green Party. Whichever gets on the ballot in my state is who I will vote for. And if the Obamaites dont like it, too bad.

agave, the computer has replaced the TV as a time waster. Well at least with the computer a person can learn a bit more than from the TV, right? So it's not a complete loss like the TV is.

wsws.org website August 8th, 2008 4:22 pm

Excellent post IMHO.

Lobo Gris

You talk about % and numbers but what was the % of American voters who voted in the last election? So Bush got only about 25% of the eligible voters to support him? Correct me if my numbers are wrong but if not off by much you have up to 75% of voters to make change in America?

Parry is correct about the U.S. press, which is unreadable. I'd go further and say that the press has very little influence in elections. People get the paper these days out of habit and to clip coupons, not to read the opinion page.

TV is where it's at. People barely read these days. There's little time to do it, and the TV offers a complete emotional package. What people hear on TV is that the terrorist threat is just around the corner.

At this point, it's a tie between Obama and McCain as to which will be more militaristic. The TV will beat the drums of fear, but the election is a toss-up.

Probably a bigger factor than press distortions will be racism, meaning Obama loses. On the other hand, even Republicans hate the Republicans these days, meaning McCain loses.

Parry is only correct in that this election will not be a slam dunk for Obama, mostly because Obama is sacrificing the progessive vote to gain disaffected Republicans. Obama is risking losing a larger block of voters because he's betting progressives have no other options than to vote for him.

We're assuming that the elections will be fair - and that's a big if.

In the end, presuming some sort of electoral form is maintained, the candidate with the most campaign dollars will win. I think that means Obama. It also means plutocracy wins, and there will be more endless wars.

Only a third-party victory can ensure peace. Let's take our 10 percent progressive vote that technically has no place to go and put it toward supporting a third party.

(By the way, Republican propaganda that Obama is elitist is effective because it's partly true. Obama has surrounded himself with Chicago School of Economics advisors, essentially plutocrats. It's absurd that Republicans - the biggest elitists and plutocrats of all - could win on such an issue, but Obama hasn't embraced populist economics at all, so that charge may resonate with voters.)

Kem P @1:32 -- Ha!

wsws.org website --

I didn't read more than a few paragraphs of your ridiculously long manifesto. And don't worry; my babies are both sleeping comfortably in their beds.

I didn't read it, but I did skim and scan it. "Gore, blah, blah, blah, FDR, blah, blah..." I specifically looked for the word "electoral" and found it nowhere. That is why I have to call Bullshit on all the Nader fanatics on here.

Every damned article has comments following about how voting for Nader will change everything. I VOTED FOR NADER IN 2000! It changed nothing! Now, I don't really care who you vote for. What makes sense to me, however, is for people in battleground states to vote Obama. You may say there are only minor differences between him and McCain, but anyone who's being completely honest knows the differences are substantial. I'm not saying Obama's Karl Marx, or even Kucinich, but he's certainly not McCain's twin as so many here like to paint him. So why not vote Obama in the close states and vote Nader in states that aren't competitive? Remember the "Nader Trader" website? Why doesn't one of the Nader supporters start one for this election? If Obama's not within 5% of McCain in my state in the last poll before the election, I'll vote Nader.

Trade your votes! A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader, regardless of where it is cast. A vote for Obama, depending on the location, could shift the election. I'm sure the Obama camp would trade 2 or 3 votes in California, Massachusetts or Vermont for 1 in Virginia. Or maybe a 5-for-1 trade in Utah, Oklahoma, or Kansas, none of which he has a shot at winning. Take a few from the easy wins, a few from the can't wins, and Nader gets his 5%.

Two final things -- this from CD back in the day: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0720-15.htm

And a question -- Did Nader not agree to NOT campaign in Florida in 2000, knowing it was going to be close, then go back on his word? I'm not trying to play "gotcha" here, but I swear I remember this being mentioned in 2004...

Got it back. What are you doing here ~AGAVE~?

Read your looooooooooooooong 4:22pm post ~WSWS~ . We don't have a baby, so I threw my computer out of the windo>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I wonder what the average amount of hours people spend posting comments on websites. I see this forum as a huge time waster, like a lot of other things in life. I wonder what kinds of things everyone could accomplish in their daily lives if they got rid of their computers. Hmmmm......

Huck, Spartan and matti and a few others---I fear that anyone who doesn't want to argue vociferously on this thread better fold up their tents and go home. As Siouxrose has said many a time. Mars rules! And that means arguing and warring with words is the norm. Too bad we can no longer afford to speak in terms of who's candidate will do the least amount of damage.We are desperately in need of finding common ground and taking our last gasp democratic institutions back. We have way too much of a home team, winner/loser ethos going in this nation and on this website. What is it about common dreams that folks don't understand? This site feels more and more nightmarsh every single day.

Damn. Existential angst is her guiding screed. They hate everything and everyone not marching lock step with their hate.

lillulu: Hello, Saw your post elucidating Obama's need to respond to McCains attack-ads in a similar fashion.

I agree. Obama needs to go for the jugular with McCain; Air ads reviving the Keating-5 scandal. How he left his children's mother when she was badly hurt. His admission he knows nothing about the economy. Show him doddering and drooling.

But most of all, It's McCain's promise of a three-front war; that that is dead-certain promise for World War Three. Obama should just start saying it over and over-McCain=WW3=$10.00 a gallon fuel=grounded airlines=unemplyment and A major recession. Repeat it ad infinitum.

It would be easy, there is a lot to work with.

<>

This is a very long post. So nobody faint or start throwing babies out of windows, k?

I'm addressing this post, specifically, to Jim Glover, a brethren CD posters. But I believe it also applies to any individuals who thinks that voting for a progressive third party candidate is ineffective. That's hardly the case, as I hope to point out in this post.

Anybody who has friends or associates or fellow-workers who are skeptical about the effect third party movements have on the political establishment, might want to use the arguments put forth in this post to dissuade them from that mistaken notion.

To Jim Glover,

In a previous post in this thread you wrote as regards voting for a third party candidate ...

"All I know is that your (third party) vote has never won anything … you are asking me to join you to be powerless like you. You guys aren't organized, you can't win anything and even if God made your candidates president (your only hope) they wouldn't have the leadership and ability to compromise and work with others like you can not do to get anything done. ...

" ... and most of you want McCain to win anyway."

Jim, as you know, in the 2000, Ralph Nader got 2.7% of the vote. Nader declared his candidacy earlier that year thinking, as many people did, that Al Gore would easily defeat George Bush. So that the scenario would be:

… Gore defeats Bush;

… At the same time, Nader gets at least 5% of the vote and, thereby, qualifies for federal money, and

… With, long-term, that money and the resulting media exposure it would buy strengthening Nader's third party movement.

Of course, as we all know, things didn't turn out that way. ...

Far from winning the 2000 election handily, Al Gore ran an *awful* campaign. Al Gore should have slaughtered George Bush in the 2000 Election.

Given the awful campaign Gore was running in 2000, many people on the left, especially the "soft-left," seeing that just before the election Bush and Gore were very close in the polls, decided against voting for Ralph Nader, Nader being their first choice, and instead switched and voted for Al Gore. ...

But what if in the days before the 2000 election Al Gore was clearly ahead of George Bush in the polls? (As he most certainly should have been, had he run anywhere near an effective campaign.) What if before the election Gore was clearly ahead in the polls and instead of switching to Gore, x number of soft-left voters stayed with Ralph Nader, their first choice? ...

Had that happened -- had Al Gore not lost to The Village Idiot," a.k.a. George Bush -- it's not unreasonable to suggest that Nader's final total would be 5% or more. Maybe even as high as 6-8%.

Were that to happen, breaking the 5% barrier would have qualified Nader for millions of dollars in federal money -- and with those millions he could have, in 2004, perhaps garnered as much as 9-10% of the total vote.

And this year, in 2008, with even more federal money and thus more media exposure, could have perhaps reached 12-15%, maybe higher.

Now, clearly, 12-15% or even 8-10% of the voting public represents a political force that the status quo cannot afford to ignore.

And so the above is not an unreasonable scenario. But, still, it's speculation -- "what if?" ... That being the case, let's deal in *facts,* let's take some historic examples of third party movements and see if they've affected the political status quo. ...

Let's start with Norman Thomas's presidential run in 1932. Running against FDR in 1932 as a third party socialist candidate, Norman Thomas garnered a surprising one million votes. ... At least it was surprising to the political establishment. ... 1,000,000 votes being, at the time, not an inconsequential number of votes.

Now, as you may know, before he was elected president, FDR was *not* in favor of government intervention in the economy. ... But when the votes were counted in 1932, FDR and the rest of the political establishment became keenly aware of the 1,000,000 votes cast for Norman Thomas. ...

They not only saw those votes, they also saw what was going on in the streets --- the demonstrations, the riots, the strikes -- in short, the broad-based political unrest and social turmoil.

And so what did FDR do? ... He moved, in his first term, strongly to the left.

Had Norman Thomas not gotten a million votes and had nothing much been going on in the streets, FDR might have adhered to his philosophy of governmental non-intervention in the economy.

In other words, although he lost in 1932, Norman Thomas' third party presidential run helped move the political consensus significantly to the left.

Of course, then as now it's not just a matter of what happens at the ballot box, it also matters what's happening in the streets. So to effect change, one must do more than simply vote.

There are, then, two goals for a progressive third party movement. ...

The immediate goal is to move the political consensus to the left. This has happened in the past and *will* happen in the future if the party's vote-total is high enough. ... So it's not a matter of winning an election, simply a strong showing can have an immediate and dramatic effect on the political establishment.

The second goal of a progressive third party movement is for the party, over time, to grow and increase its numbers -- and in doing defeat the Democratic-Republican duopoly.

So that it's not simply a matter of saying: "Third parties can never win, so why support them." ... Once Nader or McKinney or any third party movement gets beyond the 5% vote-total, they and their supporters become a political force that can't be denied – a political force that *compels* the political establishment to acknowledge them and, in turn, move to their positions.

Richard Nixon signed more progressive legislation in the 1970s than Bill Clinton did in the 1990s. Why? Because Nixon *wanted* to sign that progressive legislation? ... Not hardly. Richard Nixon was a lot of things, but he certainly wasn't a progressive. ... No, he signed progressive legislation because what was going on at the time, both at the ballot boxes and in the streets *forced* him to the left, *forced* him to sign progressive legislation.

FDR was once approached by a progressive lobbist who wanted a particular left-wing bill passed. FDR responded to the left-wing lobyist by saying: "Interesting. Now go out and force me to sign it!"

Let's take another historical example of the influence of progressive third party movements on the Democratic-Republican duopoly. ...

Henry Wallace, who was FDR's vice-president during his third term, ran for president in 1948 as a third party candidate against Democratic incumbent, Harry Truman.

Six to eight weeks before the Election, Wallace's poll-numbers were strong. He was polling around 8-10% of the vote.

Seeing this, Truman's advisors urged him to move to the right, i.e., move to the positions being espoused by Thomas Dewey, the Republican nominee.

It was at that point that Truman made his now-famous remark: "If a Democrat runs as a Republican, the real thing (meaning: the Republican) will win every time." ... (Are you listening, Barack Obama???)

So instead of moving to the right in the weeks preceding the 1948 Election, Truman instead moved to the left, that is to say, moved to the positions of third party candidate Henry Wallace.

And what happened? ... Truman won, and Wallace, who was polling around 8-10% in the weeks before the Election, wound up with only 1% of the vote on Election Day.

So that if nothing else, Wallace's entry in the 1948 Election -- although he lost -- had the effect of moving the political consensus to the left. ... A political consensus that is constantly moving, one way or the other.

Thus, third party movements *have* been influential in American politics.

Let's consider, again, the 2000 election. ...

In the weeks before the 2000 election, Al Gore was trailing George Bush by several poll-points. ... And so what did he do? ... He began moving to Nader's positions! In fact, at the time, this was dubbed by political commentators as Gore going "Nader Lite."

Granted much of this was merel
y rhetoric on Gore's part, but what wasn't lost on the political establishment was how even "Nader Lite" -- even Gore's *rhetorical* move to the left -- resonated so strongly with the public. ... So strongly, in fact, that Gore began to quickly close on Bush in the polls.

And then, about a week to 10 days before Election Day, for some inexplicable reason, Gore turned his attack-dogs loose on Ralph Nader and, via those proxies, began to fiercely criticize Nader.

Result: Gore lost the election; an election he should have won handily.

So there are two reasons to vote for a progressive third party movement:

1.) Even if the third party you vote for only gets a few percentage points of the overall vote, those few percentage points can have a significant effect on the political consensus. ... THE GREATER THE VOTE-TOTAL, THE GREATER THE EFFECT! ... So that the immediate goal of a nescient third party movement is not to win, everyone acknowledges that as unrealistic (though not impossible). ... Rather, the immediate goal of a progressive third party movement is to get enough votes to force the political establishment to pay attention to progressive positions. ... As was the case with Henry Wallace in the 1948 election, and Norman Thomas in the 1932 election.

2.) The second reason to vote for a progressive third party movement is that, yes, eventually a third party movement wants to win! Your point of view, Jim, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy -- "We can't win, so why try." ... Now, tell me: who does that benefit? Who does that reassure? Who does that keep in power?

The eventual goal of a progressive third party movement is to replace the Democratic-Republican duopoly with a broad-based, democratically-oriented political party that stands for social and economic justice.

I imagine such a prospect scares the shit out of the political establishment.

Don't think that the political establishment isn't scared to death that millions of people in the United States -- as well as the masses of people throughout the world -- aren't on the verge of a real break with the political establishment. ... Such turmoil, such political unrest make them nervous, very nervous. ...

Why have police techniques become more sophisticated in recent decades? ... Why, in recent years, have surveillance laws (e.g., F.I.S.A.) become more important to the political establishment? ... Why has the justice system become more punitive, the prisons fuller, judges and criminal sentences harsher? ... Why does mainstream media so assiduously brainwash the American public, day after day, minute after minute? ... In short: why all this political activity, if not because these are all systematic ways for the ruling classes to control the general population; keep dissent and unrest in check.

Many people believe that the general population in the United States is at a boiling point. Indeed, this goes a long way in explaining Barack Obama's sudden rise in the political hierarchy. Quoting from a recent article by David Walsh:

""Obama has survived the process to this point largely because powerful forces in the country recognize that the Bush presidency has been a disaster. A different face, a different look, is needed. Bill Clinton came along to 'feel' the population's 'pain' during a sharp recession and after the Reagan phenomenon had exhausted itself. The situation today is far more serious.

"Bush and Cheney are identified with war, slump and wholesale criminality. Confused and searching for answers, the population is seething with anger. A mass radicalization threatens. That the relatively inexperienced, bi-racial Obama has been plucked out of the ranks and possibly given his moment in the sun is itself an indication of the depth of the crisis.

"Politically, Obama is meant to forestall as long as possible the eruption of mass opposition to the existing economic and political setup. He is being marketed to the public as a caring, thoughtful black man, with hints of Lincoln in the background. He has the constructed appearance, the outer form, of opposition. But only the outer form. He's clever and adroit. He's not Bush.

"But, minus his carefully crafted identity, he's not terribly different."

Click here for David Walsh's entire article -- ttp://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/aug2008/obam-a05.shtml

Those in power have the money and the guns, Jim, but the general population also has their power -- and that power resides in their sheer numbers -- whether in the streets or at the ballot boxes.

And it's that power, that "massive" power that that's those in power are *always* afraid of -- THROUGHOUT HISTORY! That is to say, that the masses will somehow get out of control.

Even the so-called Founding Fathers feared what an aroused public might do to the political and economic status quo.

But, once you give up hope, Jim, once you become cynical and start believing in T.I.N.A. ("There Is No Alternative") -- in this case that there is no alternative to the Democratic-Republican duopoly -- then you're doing exactly what those in power are hoping you will do! ... Give up. ... Conform. ... Accept the status quo.

That's their job -- to make you believe in T.I.N.A. -- that there is no alternative and that, therefore, nothing will change.

Except things are changing all the time! ... Especially the political consensus in the United States. ... Look how quickly and how dramatically its moved to the right in recent years. That didn't "just happen," did it?

Those you power want you to believe that "You can't fight City Hall." -- while those in City Hall continue to exploit the public.

It's a shell game, Jim, you know it and so does everybody else.

Those in power, in *any* oligarchic organization -- occupational, religious, governmental -- count on your cynicism and your negativity and your pessimism. THEY COUNT ON IT, JIM! It's their life-blood.

Because cynicism, negativity and pessimism lead to political apathy and political conformity. And masses of people who conform and who are apathetic are easily controlled, easily manipulated and easily exploited.

As Ralph Nader puts it: "Pessimism is a function of inactivity." And the last thing those in power want are progressive-minded citizens -- *active* progressive-minded citizens -- challenging the status quo.

Finally, saying that progressive third parties don't work is to ignore all those countries that do, in fact, have viable third party movements. And not only "movements" but what about countries that actually have third party candidates in power! ... Examples of this are commonplace in other advanced industrial countries, especially in Europe. ...Whereas in the US, the political establishment has been quite successful brainwashing people into believing in T.I.N.A., "There Is No Alternative."

I can't believe you buy into that nonsense, Jim.

JBPM, you're right about people in this country not reading and keeping informed. They want to be entertained instead and depend on the boob tube for their information. How pathetic. Under these circumstances it's not surprising we have criminals running the government.

American schools are descending more and more towards the bottom of the heap. There are more and more high school dropouts. An uninformed, under educated society is what the New World Order wants; such people are easier to control through fear, propaganda, will provide cheap labor and military recruits for war profiteering, etc.

"nader only runs for president as a way to expand the civil discourse." To wit comes the same old crap again:
_
"With the side benefit of Giving us Bush instead of Gore and as most of you are wanting now, McSame."
_
Oh. Hockey puck. Face it Demos. Your guy Gore couldn't beat by a large margin a dim wit. Your guy Gore couldn't win his own state of Tennessee or Bill Clinton's Arkansas. But he sure knew how to roll over and play dead. That's what gave us 8 years of Bush, as did 250,000 Democrats who voted for Bush in Florida. Today, Pelosi is playing dead. Are you happy Dems? No?! But again you will vote for them that screw you.
_
Nader has a right to run for president as much as your anti-democracy Democratic Candidate Obama does. Using your spoiler logic then Hillary supporters are correct that Obama was a spoiler in her not getting the Democractic Party nomination. Follwoing the analogy further, why should Hillary supporters vote for Obama. You see how dumb this spoiler argument is.

"McCain is on the verge of senility."

Then he is the perfect candidate for the USA.

Our days were numbered when we exchanged reading for watching television. Americans share the same set of deluded misunderstandings of politics, religion, history, etc. because they all get spoon-fed the same shit from the idiot box 24 hours a day. I think this is one of the most compelling reasons that "conservatism" and "liberalism" have both lost their meaning and have instead been replaced by emotionally potent myths about how the world works and the natural dominance of Americans in that world order. At the water cooler, these general assumptions about life and reality are shared by "liberal," "centrist," and "conservative" alike, because they come from the same source: corporately sponsored TV.

We've conducted the largest experiment in brainwashing and groupthink by submitting our entire nation to a daily diet of TV. Enjoy the consequences!

Oh I don't want you to go away Coyote... I enjoy the debate and the readers can get what they want out of our little discussion.

But for me, I think it is gettin boring now so I am off this thread...see ya on another one.

Cheer up, things could be worse.

coyoteteacher August 8th, 2008 1:52 pm
Didn't you mean 2006, not 2004?

Mordechai Shiblikov August 8th, 2008 1:21 am wrote: "It is this stupidity and laziness that America's ruling class ... relies on to maintain total control ..."

I once knew a producer for one of the major television networks who told me they had a sign in the hallway saying "Never overestimate the intelligence of your audience."

Sioux, I'm all for some Florida "brain-storming." (I'm in Gainesville.) It gets lonely out here in Obamania land! Again, my contact is jerrydrose11@yahoo.com. This is the only way I know to make contact unless you and others want to put your e-mails on this thread. Jerry

With regards voting out the incumbents I thought that the 2004 was a referendum on precisely that point. The newbes promised the END THE OCCUPATION. What we got following the promises was more of the same. Perhaps you missed it?

we are not going away either Jim.

the solution is simple , but unfortunately can't be implemented because too many years of fear mongering, about endless shadowy threats to our "freedoms", add in chemical laden "processed shyt" they call food, work them to the edge of sanity as they try to get by on 5 hrs sleep doing 2 jobs to make ends meet, all the while hoping and praying no one gets sick, because it would bankrupt and destroy your lives because of the corporate, profit driven sickness leeches who pray on the sick instead of care for them.

bombarded daily on the tv, radio, videos, adds etc., with the government line, dressed as "breaking news" broadcast around the world by all the MSM propaganda corporations the gov dictates it's message to.

yes the answer is so simple but will never happen.

what is this solution?...

if a "candidate" has held office... vote them out.

get rid of all the "incumbents".

vote in a fresh new bunch.. from the general population, those who are the local butcher, doctor , hairdresser etc.

this is how the system was supposed to work.

It was never intended that someone made a career out of being a senator or governor or even the president for that matter.

it is the "career politicians" who are beholding to the special interest groups that prop them up, they care less what you and I the people need.

if they are in office now or have been in the past 10 yrs... throw the useless bums out.. period.

I bet a group of small business people, like the guy running the local restaurant, could manage to do a hell of a lot more for us the people and our interests, than all the career politicos put together... I think the results of political pros since WWII have given enough examples of why we should get rid of the whole stinking lot of them.

So the third party has got a solution?

Very funny...but here is the result you want to lay down.
http://campaignmoney.org/mccainoil

JERRY ROSE: Poet, EZEflyer and I all live in Florida, as do others, no doubt. We should all get together at some midpoint location and brainstorm!

Wow ! A 190 comments in less than 12 hours. The wrath of the Naderites and Hillaryistas and McCainites is enough to blow Obama out of the water. Who knew people would reach so deep into their psyche to spew this stuff. Im voting for my dog. Screw the rest.

I read the whole thread (a lot of recycled opinions), but my personal kudos to the following for adding thoughtful comments: TOAST, CHRIS HORTON, SPARTAN LAD KENNY, WSWS (especially the 8:42 PM posting), JOZEF, SAMSON & humor: Earl Simmons.

goose, I am unconvinced. Hedges recently wrote a powerful piece on precisely your point called Hedonistic Power. I refer you to that article. Bush, and if McCain are nothing more than a passing clouds on the backdrop of history. Most people who support Obama dont seem to hold the urgency our species is encountering with climate change. This is the most important long term issue facing us, and gets lip service rather than action. Obama is following the same status quo norms that led us into the crisis. He has no solution.

altoghernow,

"nader only runs for president as a way to expand the civil discourse."

With the side benefit of Giving us Bush instead of Gore and as most of you are wanting now, McSame.

Until you guys get your shit together you serve the right wing ruling class interests and your hate of Dems does not absolve you from that fact!

We ain't goin away but if you wish to ignore us, we'll survive it.

>>Besides the GOP's legendary ability to dupe Americans into voting against their own best interests by exploiting their inherent racism, bigotry, and zenophobia,<<

I don't think anyone ever votes against their own best interest, we simply don't understand what *they* think is in their best interest. Racism, xenophobia and bigotry exist in all peoples of the world in every country, state, town, vilage and household. If it isn't the bigotry of white against black, it is the bigotry of right against left.

As a progressive I know that what I want is different than the majority of the people in this country. Don't lose sight of the fact that we are a VERY small minority voice in all this. Blue islands in a sea of red. We are in fact so small that we can't tip the scale in our favors, but we can tip it in favor of the Republicans by not voting party line.

Obama is far from a bad choice. If you abandon him, you are not doing our cause any long term good because you condemn us to the tender mercies of the Republicans for four more years. The country is split 50/50 and will be for some time. If we are the permanent 3% or 5% of the left that jump off into the river at every election, we are ELECTING the Republicans every time. They don't have splitters, why must we?

good luck, I agree the Supreme Court decided to stop counting votes. Gore indeed won! With regards Kerry; Kerry said "every vote would count, and every vote be counted." In retrospect, Kerry obviously lied. He capitulated rather than challenge the vote. The Democratic Party also capitulated with regards the vote fraud in Ohio. It was the Green Party the brought litigation to challenge it. Are you still wondering why some of us choose to vote Third Party?

lisa3210peace, thank you for your intelligent and informative posts. I see the right-wing plants and trolling infiltrators don't like what you have to say and are trying to discredit you. Ignore them.

called a McCain win over a year ago. Put some black guy up for prez and he won't win/ AIPAC want McCain so the media backs him.

HUCK
\you missed 3 points Gore and Kerry both won those elections and DIEBOLD made sure there was no paper trail.
Americans are toast and have not got the guts to make change.

With regards to Jerry's point, again, hitting the mark square on. The Democrats never seem to learn but always fall back on the dogma that elections are won from the center. Kerry followed that norm as did Gore, and we all know how that turned out. Obama cannot run fast enough to the Center by shifting on core issues important to the left: the real left and not the lip service left. The Democrats are experts at snatching defeat from the jaw of victory. And if a Dem cannot win in this contemporary moment following four years of W than they are not likely to win for years to come.

I think RichM offered the best rebuttal I've read on this site with regards accusations that some people here are only Republican plants, when he provided a cogent rebuttal against the assertion by telling us a few weeks back:

"It's hilariously ironic that a Democratic Party apologist should call people to the left of the Dem Party "Republicans," because the reality is that there's no better friend of the Republican Party than the Democratic Party. The DP rolls over on its back for the RP, defends it against impeachment, passes all its legislative initiatives, & refuses to expose it for the criminal organization that it is.

If anyone here should be accusing anyone else of being de facto supporters of Republicans, it's those to the left who should be doing the accusing, and the Democratic Party apologists who should stand as the accused."

I obviously wholeheartedly agree!

RichM I am indeed, one and the same of JFK notoriety, have moved to Florida and morphed into another strange creature called "the sun state activist." If you or anyone wants to reach me, I'm at jerrydrose11@yahoo.com.

RichM,
thank you. I am rather new at trying to contribute to this site, but have been reading articles only for about a year.

lisa peace, jim glover,
i have heard you both complain of agressive condescending posts, 'republican infiltration' and such.
reminds me of bush or some other rovian official decrying some action while doing it, hoping no one will notice. it is a last ditch strategy to maintain control, words that must be used to connect with the majority while not abiding by them. sound familiar?

nader only runs for president as a way to expand the civil discourse.

CD posters who are here for real discussion should resist the temptation to respond to the antics of 'lisa3210peace.' There's nothing in her mind or spirit that's in any way worth the effort; & she'll go away if denied the attention she so desperately seeks.

Jerry D. Rose (11:31 am) - Good analysis. (BTW, are you the same 'Jerry D Rose' that's contributed to various JFK websites, like MaryFerrell.org, etc?)

Why McCain may well lose.... With a song by Willie.

https://pol.moveon.org/donate/gettowork.html?r=4015&id=13424-7773665-e5k8Ebx

Americans into voting against their own best interests by exploiting their inherent racism, bigotry, and zenophobia,

Bull Dip

Alltogether,

Dancing Fool is not asleep... Dancing
Fool just woke you up and you don't like it.

Take another nap it is gettin Late for those who can't take reality....

I got a question for you Nader Worshiping Fools, and I'll answer it for you tonight or tomorrow.

Why, excluding his presidential runs, has Ralph Nader never run for elected office?

"because whiney left wing liberals will point out Obama's faults more than McCains… continually." That because Obama has all these faults. Obama = McCain = S.O.S.

Without having read every post---good, bad or indifferent---on this thread, I'd like to offer my own interpretation on this issue of McCain as "winner" of the election. I've been saying for at least 6 months that we need to get used to saying "President McCain" because I've thought and continue to think that, unfortunately, this is going to happen---but not really for the reason of media bias that Mr. Parry emphasizes. Rather, I've seen the demise of any opportunity for a Democratic victory going back into the Democratic primaries, when the party abandoned its supposed progressive "base" by doing its quadrennial swan dive toward the political center, as Kucinich, Gravel and even the semi-progressive Edwards were eliminated (albeit with a lot of media-bias assistance) from contention and the primary became an essentially issue-less contest of popularity and social identity between the "woman" and the "black." With his nomination and subsequent panderings toward every conceivable conservative element, Obama and the Party have set themselves up for the very focus on "personal" questions of patriotism, competence, etc. that are always the last refuge of campaigns where there is no real substantive difference between the opponents. In this contest McCain "well may" and probably will win.

Is this contest salvageable for Obama? Yes, if he took the necessary route for success, which is the essence of simplicity but is a route which he and the party are apparently not willing or able to follow. He wins by becoming the true champion of the interests of "the people" over those of "the corporation," the proponent of peace and international harmony advocates over those of war and empire. These are the issues of the majority of the American people, and it should not take that much courage to stand up to the power of AIPAC and Goldman Sachs and say: "this is where I stand, with the people, and no amount of derision heaped on me as a 'radical' or as 'un-patriotic' and no degree of threat of losing this election is going to deter me, as 'I'd rather be right than President.'" By being willing to lose the election by standing on principle, he can win. Given his and the party's long-time and immediate dependence on these powers, I doubt this will happen, especially if people in the peace/progressive movement join his ranks as the "best deal available" among the only "viable" candidates.

Given the likelihood that Obama won't or can't make this trip back to the political left from which the party of the people supposedly derived, the people have no choice but to abandon the party that has abandoned them, and support a third party candidate like Nader or McKinney. I can even see the possibility that Obama will reach such a degraded state of support from the people that he will be the "unelectable" candidate and that we who support McKinney would be able to say in truth that voting for Obama rather than for her for President is tantamount to a "vote for McCain." How about them particular apples?

i'll tell you why McCain might still have a chance...

because whiney left wing liberals will point out Obama's faults more than McCains... continually...

Their politicians have no chance (AND NEVER WILL) of securing the White House...

perhaps these whiners aren't happy unless they have a Republican to rip on in the White House...

whatever. chumps.

"...under a democracy, the people get exactly the government they deserve. in our case, it is the national pastime of watching tv news which is our undoing and which is an inexcusable vice in the age of the internet." Read the U.S. Constitution. We are not a "democracy". The word democracy appears nowhere. We are a republic. The electoral college is proof of that. So then, the conclusion is that the people never get what they want. They only get the winner of an election for president that is pre-determined by the corporate operating paradigm that owns and runs everything. And of course, the corporations with the rights and privileges of personhood own the media and program us into accepting that we a have a choice between only two possibilities. Democracy requires and demands that this dominant paradigm be broken. Otherwise. we as suckers participating in it, are contributing to its continuation. Run Ralph. Run!

dancingfool, if your still here,
thanks for admitting you are asleep.
waking up to myths that have so long been held as truths is the hardest part.
most of what i find on the huff post and the kos are liberal attitudes adding the problem.

"Given the persistent superficiality - and cowardice - of the major U.S. news media, there's even the larger question of whether a meaningful democracy can survive when the public is so thoroughly misinformed."

Not "persistent superficiality - and cowardice", but outright complicity in the corporate propagandizing of the American people.

Besides the GOP's legendary ability to dupe Americans into voting against their own best interests by exploiting their inherent racism, bigotry, and zenophobia, what can guarantee a McCain victory is Liberals throwing their votes away on Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, or Róger Calero. With current poll numbers within their margins of error, even 5% voting for candidates whose chance of winning is roughly equivalent to that of the Tooth Fairy's will assure the unchallenged continuation of Reaganism.

Spartan,

I see what is in front of our country now and will vote to avoid the worst catastrophe.

If we progress in stages, Step by step the long term will take care of itself.

If that is always siding with the winner, great! and I hope we can stop this direction towards the cliff... that would be a win for me.

We are headed for the cliff in 3 months if we don't turn away from the state we are in.

if you are more concerned with another existence than the present you are far out Man.

Nader is a Republican Functionary. He serves their cause, speaks against the Democrats on Fox News, and his supporters are verbally violent brown-shirts.

Nader and Rove love you guys.

Vote 3rd Party=Vote McCain.

And now you intellectual paupers are having to admit that Nader is the lesser evil!

But you always say it's okay: he can union bust, have money in Dow, work "hand in glove" (cisco systems) with a Poice State.

Any asshole can sit on a wooden crate and claim a progressive position-one has to get elected to make change, something NADER HAS CAREFULLY AVOIDED.

He is a piece of excrement, and his supporters have it smeared in their eyes. Bring It On.

Obama '08. A Lesser Evil.

When Viet-Nam was an inferno, Ralph Nader was crusading against COLORED TOILET PAPER, but now owns stock in DOW=NAPALM.

No, I don't like him personally, and that is one of many reasons why.

Jim Glover - This "Always siding with the winner mentality" is exactly why this country is in this state. You're afraid to be a part of a group which will lose short term. You are myopic and can't see no further than your current existence.

Thanks dancingfool,
Fear, Courage and values are all important ...and it is best to balance them.
Fear is a survival mechanism.... If you think your values make you a super hero and want to use your vote to bring on the worst like so many here want so they can have more reason to march in the streets.... better get some bullet proof vests. Just remember, Rush supports you too!

It is interesting that this debate has gone on for so long. The Obama pragmatists vs the Nader idealists. I have been torn between the two but I would rather side with the idealists. Here's why?

I was reading a book called "Bad Samaritans" by Ha-Joon Chang in which he makes these valuable points against conventional Free-market economy wisdom. He puts forth the hypothesis that the state needs to invest in loss-making ventures and hold on to it until they are strong enough to stand on their own and compete in the free-market. He gives the example of Toyota and Samsung to strengthen his case.

I couldn't help but draw the same conclusion with our current political scenario. We all agree that system is defunct and regressive in nature. The establishment wants to maintain status quo and will continue to push for it with all its might (which is HUGE) because the power structure supports the rich and the powerful. The only tool we have to counter this movement from the top brass is our democratic vote. Democracy is still of the people, for the people and by the people. Its meaning has diluted over time but it still stands on the same ideal. Its just a question of when the people make their claim to their democracy.

So Nader is and has been a loss making venture (as per Democratic propaganda). "He cause Gore to lose, he caused Kerry to lose" yada, yada which we all know is a bunch of BS. But we need to back our loss-making venture and make sacrifices for a few years. Nader's movement has grown in strength over the past few years as more and more people see the folly in betting on the same horses who turn out of be losers in the end. The big issue is how we define a WIN.

Does beating Republicans automatically make us win? I don't think so. Does a win for Obama mean a win for the progressive movement? Hell NO! Will voting for Nader help him win? Probably not. But it will add more and more credibility to the line of thought that people care about maintaining the basic ideals of our society which has been torn to shreds by our ruling class. So we should vote for Nader and bite the bullet. Obama might lose because of that and Republicans will plunder more and more wealth. But you can't give up...and keep doing the same thing until
1) Nader or his likes become front runners OR
2) Democrats realize that they can't quit the progressive ideals and expect to be in power.

I am an Indian and take great pride in the freedom movement forwarded by greats like Gandhi and Bose. There were so called "realists" and "pragmatists" even during those times who thought co-operating with the occupiers would get them short-term benefits but freedom is a long-term goal and comes with a price. Call me an idealist but you have to pay a price for freedom, in most cases a hefty one.

Lord Mountbatten told Gandhi, "If the British leave india, the country will be in chaos!" Gandhi replied, "Yes, but it will be OUR chaos." So the Brits left and Indians fought among themselves for power; millions died but India finally prevailed. We have our deficiencies and our faults but it still is our rule not dictated by someone else at our cost.

So the bottom line is: Don't be afraid to vote for Nader. If you vote for him you send a message to DC that you are not afraid. Dems have been using the Republican demon for too long to scare progressives even though very few dems display any progressive characteristics. Change is the only thing which is constant and things in this country will change indeed. Until we dismantle the power structure ourselves, no one else is going to do it for us.

Obama does not deserve your vote if he refuses to respect the most basic ideals of - not just the progressive movement but of a free-thinking american. The constitution is not to be compromised on, the environment is not to be compromised on, people's lives are not to be compromised on, people's welfare is not to be compromised. Let the country come to a standstill but giving up on your ideals is not worth progress. Men without ideals are men with no meaningful existence!

Jim Glover August 8th, 2008 10:21 am

"3rd parties need to get their own shit togeher before they have any influence."

I would say from the number of posters trying to convince everyone to not vote third party that they are already having some influence. If not, why bother?

Lobo Gris

Well said,Jim Glover! God save us from these lefty purists and their chest beating as well as the fascists!I use to love this website until these self righteous ,cranky b**tards started doninating the forum.I am off to some fresh air on the Huffington Post and the Daily Kos!Wake me up when you hopeless utopian Naderites find paradise!

I won't vote for Obama because of his anti environmental policies, his capitulation on matters of import to me, not because of the color of his skin.

We all pretty much agree on this one. So lets get it over with and crash and burn. After the smoke clears what will be left is a 1984 type scenario with big brother still watching you. This election is going to be one big sham. Get used to it and get ready to pick up the pieces if there are any worth picking up.

curmudgeon99 August 7th, 2008 10:28 pm
Only the Dems could end up with two losers fighting for the nomination.

2. Sad to say, there are just too many of us that will NEVER, EVER, EVER vote for a Black man.

I'm not buying this for one minute. If Obama doesn't or can't win it will be because of his lack of experience, his refusal to answer real questions, his questionable associations and his continued switching till I can't tell where he stands.

Except for a predictable segment thats not that big anymore most people don't give a rats ... that Obama is half white.

Also anyone that has done any and I mean any due diligence and doesn't know that Wright is a racist of the worst kind and a bigot to boot should reconsider their research methods.

Thank you for asserting the point I just made.

Someone here said with amazment "you mean there are different degrees of Evil?"

Dah,,, evil knows no bounds and one bad can be serious and another bad can be slight and since none of us are perfect we can find "evil" or fault with any body or anything.

Our left needs to get organized,,, with Nader and the Greens spliting their votes they are usless in giving the left any influence and why would a man who wants to lead the whole nation give in to those who call him Evil?

3rd parties need to get their own shit togeher before they have any influence.

But if you are not afraid of new fascism and you just want to march in the streets, McCain is your man!

The moral Glover is proposing is simple: VOTE YOUR FEAR INSTEAD OF YOUR VALUES.

AllTogetherNow - "save electronic vote couting, its obamas race to lose, and lose he will if he takes the left for granted."

You said it. Then you moved on, back to the irrelevent.

If you don't have an army of righteous volunteer goody-twoshoes hovering over the vote counts, ensuring that nobody gets up to anything sneeky... If you don't have a paper trail that can be used to verify results that deviate significantly from exit polls... If you can sue the pants off anyone who smells a rat... What's the point? A machine spits out a number at the end of the day, and there's no way to verify or question it? WTF?

Go Ahead, Rock the Vote. We'll just Jazz the Tally!

the race is on, put aside your mccain fears which are just fear mongering dem style, and have the guts to threaten obama with your support of a 3rd party of your choice.

save electronic vote couting, its obamas race to lose, and lose he will if he takes the left for granted.

After the last Presidential election of 2004 I lost every ounce of faith I ever had in the American people's ability to know right from wrong! After they voted a corrupt moron right back into office. I think McCain will probably win! A senile old man who has to have his young rich wife wipe his a.. for him. It's going to be a disaster if he does. Because most American's have no common sense anymore. They have been too dumbed down by Republican Rhetoric to figure out what's good for them and the country. So I look for another Republican President and at least 4 more years of failed policies before people finally wake up to the harm these people have done.

What lisa3210peace fails to mention is that the investment data she quotes is from the year 2000, eight years ago. So unless she has newer data than Google no one knows whether he is even still invested in Cisco or not. That Nader's worth at that time was 3.8 million, which 32% of comes to 1 million plus not millions.

She also fails to note that Nader at that time was giving away 80% of his after tax income and didn't own a house or a car.

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/06/20/nader/

Just some handy facts to let everyone determine whether Nader is evil or not for themselves.

Lobo Gris