Country Last
Hey, did you know that John McCain was a POW?
Did you also know that he was a POW, and that he was a POW?
Now that I've recapped seventy percent of the Republican Convention last week, let me fill in the remaining 30 percent: hypocrisy, arrogance, lies and bullshit.
What an unbelievable ride the last week has been, though that will be the fundamental question of this election: Will it be believable? Can Republicans use the old magic successfully one more time? Has the American public, even an angry American public, been dumbed down sufficiently in recent decades to vote against its own interests, yet one more time, even under conditions like those of 2008?
Really, nothing less than American democracy lies in the balance, and the fact that so many folks are still susceptible to this horror show is dispiriting in the extreme. Watching the Rovoclones at the RNC in action was such a scary sight. Orwell had it so right. Of course we're at war with Eurasia. We've always been at war with Eurasia. If you can fool people under these conditions with patriotic peacocks and über-elite fake outrage over ‘liberal elitism', you can basically fool them anytime.
McCain began the week with an act that, in any healthy democracy, would have instantly disqualified him to be the city dogcatcher in Wasilla, Alaska, let alone leader of the free world. He has been telling us for years that the fight against Islamofascism is the transcendental struggle of our time. He has been telling us the most important job of the Vice President is be qualified to run the country at a moment's notice (not least because this particular dude is a seventy-two year-old four-time cancer survivor). He's been telling us over and over that Iraq is the central front in the war against terrorism. Then he chooses someone who has admitted that she doesn't really know anything about Iraq, ‘cause she's been focused on Alaska state government. Given that the war has been the premier foreign policy issue for America for half a decade now, we also can safely assume, I'm sure, that she knows even less about the rest of the world.
This definitely demonstrates two things about John McCain. First, that his judgement is deeply impaired. We know, for example, that he had hardly vetted Sarah Palin at all, other than within the last couple of days before the announcement. We know, from Alaskan Republicans no less, that no one from the McCain campaign was up there asking questions prior to the choice (but they are now!). We know that McCain had met her all of once before making the choice. Americans really need to ask themselves, do we truly want another four years of a president who goes on gut hunches and politicizes every decision?
Even more importantly, though, this choice tells us that McCain was more than willing to do something that would benefit his personal career ambitions, regardless of the consequences for the country and the world. Palin may help him have a shot at winning the presidency -- perhaps by attracting the votes of unsophisticated women, certainly by rallying the regressive freakoids in his party -- but it is ludicrous to believe that she is remotely qualified, let alone most qualified, to handle what McCain himself says is the most important project of our time. The man who sickeningly implies that his opponent is less patriotic than he is has exacerbated that base assault on decency and the fabric of American democracy by hypocritically doing exactly the opposite of what he claims as his campaign theme. The Palin pick was definitive proof that McCain puts country last -- even by the standards of his own formulation.
Equally dispiriting was to see the regressive robots in action this week. Within hours of McCain choosing a candidate they had never heard of before, they were giddy with fanatic support for her, and foaming at the mouth with indignation that anyone might actually have the temerity to apply the rules of Republican sexual morality and gender rights to a Republican. Those are meant strictly for other people, don't you know?
Palin's speech was also nauseating in its condescending and disrespectfully mocking attitude. Indeed, she, herself, as the nominee supposed to attract women voters, is condescending in the extreme to those very women, just by her existence on the ticket. What an insult. One can only hope that they see it that way themselves, but after the last eight years I can't put any insanity past the American public anymore. The fact that McCain is essentially tied with Obama in the polls right now is a really scary thought. After all this, are people still so lacking in critical faculties to discern the choices here? Can they really be so readily fooled, yet again?
The rest of the convention was an otherworldly experience for me. Often, I felt as though I had fallen through the looking glass into some alternative universe. Did you know that regressive Republicans are actually big-time feminists? You could have easily reached that conclusion watching this convention, and the indignation directed toward anyone who dared question Palin's qualifications or challenge the lies her handlers were peddling about her. Did you know that these GOP folks are big supporters of Hillary Clinton? McCain actually ran television ads criticizing Obama for supposedly dissing Hillary when he picked Biden as his running mate. Amazing. Like McCain really gives a shit about Hillary. Like his ideological clan hasn't spent the last two decades absolutely savaging her mercilessly at every opportunity. Like McCain really, really wants the Democrats to pick the ‘best' VP nominee they can to run against him. Like the guy and his movement, who oppose equal pay legislation for women, is genuinely offended that Obama would pick someone else. I shudder to think what it says about America that the McCain camp didn't see it as a ridiculous waste of money to run those ads.
An equally mind-bending episode from the theater of the absurd was Mitt Romney's hallucinatory rhetorical journey in which he savaged liberals for putting America in the sad state it's in now. My goodness, have I ever been deluded. All these years I was thinking that the right-wing controlled all three branches of government. I can now see how wrong I am, what with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid ending the Iraq war, jamming national healthcare through Congress, dealing aggressively with global warming, forcing Christian girls to have abortions, impeaching the president, and so on. And Mitt, too, what a reliable source he is! There's a guy of principle who never, for instance, would radically change his political stripes depending on, say, whether he wanted to be governor of Massachusetts versus win the GOP nomination for president. You can take it from him, that's for sure.
Often this week, I felt like I had been fully immersed in a John Lennon song, circa 1967 (though the remarkably uptight GOP rank-and-file - afraid of every conceivable bogeyman out there, but nothing so much as their own sexual urges - was usually sufficient to snap me back to the awful present). What a little LSD trip of a convention this was. Mitt! You're such an eggman! Lieberman! What a freaking plasticine porter you are, dude! Goo Goo G'joob on all you corporation tee-shirts.
I'm crying. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I really am.
But truly the most bizarre event of all at the convention was the one that didn't happen. Once again, one could certainly be excused for thinking that control of the government has been in the hands of some Baader-Meinhof Provisional Revolutionary People's Movement Vanguard Government, or such, this last decade. Oddly, though, it turns out that America has in fact been controlled by the most reactionary government ever in American history. Strange, then, that a convention chock-a-block with reactionaries didn't stop a moment to sing the praises of the good lads Bush and Cheney. A sitting president from your own party who has delivered on ninety-five percent of your agenda, and what - no gaudy, gauzy tribute video with swelling background music? No valedictory address before the raving party faithful? Hmmm. Why do you suppose that might be?
Perhaps Bush was just too modest to highlight all the accomplishments of his eight years. You know. The great economy, the capture of Bin Laden, two wars well managed and brought to a swift conclusion, the tightening of relations with our allies, the rise in home values, the fall in gas prices, the drop in unemployment, the lowering of the national debt, the strength of the dollar, the responsible efforts addressing global warming, the emergency management response to Hurricane Katrina, the personal freedoms defended like those of the Terri Schiavo family, the protection of the Bill of Rights, the restoration of the balance of power between the branches of government, the steadfastness against human rights violations in Darfur and Guantánamo, the blocking of nuclear proliferation in North Korea and all over the world by Pakistan, the solving of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the creation of universal healthcare coverage in America, the investment in rebuilding our infrastructure, the popular success of No Child Left Behind, the unifying of our country, and so very, very much more. Indeed, perhaps it is simply because the list of accomplishments is just so long that they decided to forego this ritual that is part of every convention where there is an incumbent president.
Peronally, I was hoping that Bush would reprise his 2000 nomination acceptance speech this year. You know, the one where he derided Al Gore for arguing that Bush's policies would be "risky". The one with the repeating riff, "They have not led. We will." I thought a catalogue of all the ways in which Bush has led these last eight years, and all the successes he's had compared to his Democratic predecessor would have really helped John McCain, don't you? I wonder why they missed such an obvious opportunity to help their campaign.
There were so many lowlights to the Republican convention this year, it's hard to know which was the ugliest episode of all. Was it Joe Lieberman whoring for a cabinet position? Was it Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin condescendingly mocking Barack Obama because he was once a community organizer? Was it McCain, himself, going on endlessly about his POW days, trying to guilt-trip us into giving him a little ride into history because he was once shot down while bombing Vietnamese peasants into oblivion? I think my favorite had to be Fred Thompson's not-so-subtle questioning of Obama's patriotism by saying we need a president who won't apologize for America abroad, and one who won't give teleprompter speeches designed to appeal to America's critics overseas. Wow. Such brass. And such a pathetically immature society we are, where comments such as these could be remotely effective.
What all of this signals clearly is that McCain has fully given himself over to the win-at-any-cost, Karl Rove acolyte Steve Schmidt and his team, who have been running his scorched earth campaign for several months now. These are the very same people who ate McCain himself alive in 2000, using the most vicious techniques found anywhere in the political sphere, as a result of which the candidate was justifiably outraged and incensed in the extreme. These animals have been ripping apart the fabric of American democracy for decades now, using race, homophobia, faux patriotism, fear, immigration, deceit and the dirtiest of tricks to continue winning office at any cost. And the cost has been great indeed.
As so McCain, who has the audacity to campaign on the theme of "country first", is doing precisely the opposite, and precisely the sort of things that he once deplored himself. Republicans don't really seem to have the shame gene, as far as I can see, but if they did, this man would be avoiding mirrors for the rest of his life.
Of course, this is not really all that new for him. He's been running around flacking for Bush for eight years now. He's completely changed his positions on the religious right, whom he once described as "agents of intolerance", as well as on immigration, torture, taxes and more, in every case placating the loonies in his party to win the nomination. Some conviction politician, eh? He once mortgaged the dignity of blacks in America by coming out in favor of the confederate symbol on the flag of South Carolina, just to pander to white racists in his own party. That is, before admitting that he had done so and re-reversing his position, of course. And, talk about country first, what the hell were he and Palin doing in the Gulf Coast as it scrambled to prepared for the series of hurricanes coming its way? George Bush, operational commander-in-chief of the federal government, said he wasn't going to go there and cause a distraction. Gee, I wonder what the senator from Arizona and the governor of Alaska brought to the preparation efforts down there? You'd almost think they were using a national disaster as a campaign event.
I've seen Barack Obama reacting to the allegations and smears coming out of the Republican convention, and I've seen some of the ads he's running. The latter are pretty good, but the former is pathetic. This dude better freakin' cowboy up, and fast, or he is going to get consumed by the Rove machine, just like Dukakis, Gore, Kerry and the rest. Obama needs to show some anger, he needs to stop speaking so hesitantly in his delivery, he needs some sharp pithy lines to trot out, and he needs to go on the attack. In short, he needs to bare some teeth.
Most of all, while he still barely has a chance to do so, he needs to inoculate himself from what is surely coming. Now is the time to runs endless ads associating McCain with Rove with Bush with dirty politics and to scream out foul play, especially along the lines of not putting country first. Such inoculation will prove invaluable when the pond scum in the McCain camp want to start going very, very low, as the campaign nears election day. Obama can then fit such attacks into the frame he's created, shake his head in ‘sadness' at the ‘desperation' of the McCain campaign, and take away the single thing the Republican has going for him -- the false perception that he is a patriot and an honorable man. But if Obama waits until Schmidt really gets going, without paving the way in advance for an accurate perception of what they're actually doing, it will be too late.
Aren't they smart enough to get this?!?! The thought of another weak-kneed Democratic presidential candidate getting rolled by a GOP dirty politics machine is too much to possibly stomach, especially in 2008, when a candidate pretty much just needs to show up in order to win.
I have tentatively supported Obama so far in large part because I liked what I saw as some fighting instincts during the primary season. But if he can't attack McCain for picking someone who doesn't meet McCain's own definition of what the country needs in a president, if he can't show enough intelligence to put this patriotism crap off limits after the swift-boating experience of 2004, if he can't show some grit to the voting public who longs to see it, then he won't win and doesn't deserve to.
But that's him, and that's his problem.
I deserve better than that, and so does the rest of the world.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
65 Comments so far
Show AllObama and Biden are actively working for John McCain, they both know he'll be the next president. It has all been decided months ago, the electoral and popular votes are known for most in congress and a few chosen in the media.
The Democrats will increase their numbers in both houses of congress and the Republicans will have the White House. The 'gridlock' will continue for at least 4 years. War with Iran will start in the winter.
Once and for all: votes don't count and elections in America don't matter. Democrats would never have both congress and the presidency. They'd actually have to do something. The charade must continue, and so must the 'gridlock.'
Every time Obama applauds McCain for his "service to his country" and for being "a great American", and when Biden goes on Meet the Press and sings McCain's praises and treats Palin as if she were someone worthy of respect and deference, I just want to reach into the television and slap them. If they're hoping the media will do their jobs and point out the facts for them or, worse yet, if they believe the electorate will come to their senses and vote their interests instead of being manipulated by emotional appeals, they better get their election night concession speeches ready.
you know....in the bible when Jesus spoke of raising the dead, he was speaking of a spiritual state of being.
I think a genuine opposition party simply needs to be alive in the spiritual sense.
Ralph does not strike me as being alive in this sense,
Neither does Cynthia.
Maybe we have this whole thing completely wrong.
Maybe a genuine democracy must be direct and consistently active, where the people realize that democracy does not exist when we let someone else decide for us, and are in consequence always responsible for the kind of world we find ourselves living in.
I mean what else do we do that really matters that we only participate in every four years?
Obama has it right in this sense and this may be the one crucial bit of oxygen in a political environment that is deficient of that life giving element.
It's about us, not them.
McCain's approach, is I will work for you this time, I promise.
Obama's approach, you have to work for yourself this time, or I can't promise.
This country is not theirs, it's ours.
You're joking, right? McKinney and Nader are doing precisely what (and represent) exactly what you say Obama advocates. Talk about doublethink (or a variation thereof).
There is spiritual sense that comes in a package and that which is genuine. (See Cynthia McKinney and almost all Greens.)
Right, the only reason I mention Obama above Nader and McKinney is that he is the only one of the three who has a chance to become president at this time.
I have read speeches and listened to both Nader and McKinney, and though they are both compelling, more so than Obama or McCain, I am hesitating based on some other criteria not normally considered here.
It's my own little analysis, and so that's why I probably seem like I've got double standards.
Leea, you have hit the nail right on the head.....brilliant!!!!. Democracy is an exercise of the human spirit! It is the evolutionary destiny of humankind.
Sounds good to me Stephen, (virtual high five)
......I'm almost speechless after reading this....
David Micheal Green must be a Troll.
Heh.
Obama needs to look at the impassioned speech Kucinich delivered to the DNC. In fact, he should take his cue from Kucinich's very direct, blunt speech patterns and posture. And yes, get angry and stay angry---Obama should recapture that very tone with which he delivered his message at the DNC. Get loud, very loud, and nail every McBush/Palin lies with short and abrupt phrases. That's the only syntax that gets through to the idiotic-simplistic-American Idol watching electorate glued to the O'reilly/Hannity/Limbaugh machine and forever starstruck by beauty queens and addicted to popularity contests..
Obama strategists take note!!!!
I watched Keith O interview of Obama tonight and it left me with an uneasy feeling that McCain may win. Obama kept repeating that he had faith in the American people to see the truth and to do the right thing. Keith tried several times to advise Obama that he needs to get angry and go on the attack, but to no avail. I saw Nader last night on fstv foaming at the mouth going after corporate interests and prodding people to get involved. His was a clear message for change that at this time Obama is only giving lip service to. I am sure that a lot of people are experiencing severe anxiety about the mess we are in and the tumultuous battles ahead to regain tranquility and to survive as a species. Where are our great leaders in this time of need and when is enough enough?
From Tao Te Ching:
In dwelling be close to the land
In meditation go deep in the heart
In dealing with others be gentle and kind
In speech be true
In ruling be just
In business be competent
In action watch the timing...
The U.S. is so confused!!!!
What is happening is the greed of institutional capitalism is destroying our nation .....and the world .....and yet our nation is still in love with capitalism.
The privileged and powerful keep telling us that Capitalism = Democracy. It doesn't. Capitalism keeps the monied few in power, as they have always been. Democracy gives people the power. We do not live in a Democracy.
Franklin Roosevelt marked the beginning of the Democratic party's move to the left. Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Carter kept it going in that direction. Then Clinton came along and screwed it up.
There have been no "good" presidents but a few of them were alright.
Believe me I'd take Roosevelt, Truman , Kennedy , or Carter over either Obama or McCain anyday. However with the choice being McCain or Obama I think I'm going to stick with Obama.
1) I will never hold it against John McCain for "cracking" under torture. Torture, like rape, is a situation where you do what you need to do to survive. And then, if you are very lucky, you find a way to forgive yourself.
2) Can we please, please just focus on the main, salient facts? Which are that leadership espoused by the sitting president and approved up by this candidate promises us simply more of the same.
3) Look at the economy. Look at our status in the international community. Look at how our treasure and might is being squandered on an ill-conceived war of aggression on Iraq. Just like Bill Clinton's "It's the economy, stupid." this drum beat needs to be struck over and over. Whatever McCain and Palin are (and they are many things) the are not a change. They are more of the same.
4) and even though this is severely off topic...what is happening in America when on a SUNDAY for cripes sake, it is "decided" that We (the people?) will bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Public discourse? Government by the people and for the people? More like another republican allocation plan of America's waning treasure. George W Bush was never anything else but a spoiled brat who has treated the nation--our treasure, our reputation, our people--like a Corvette that he runs smack dab into a wall. The Sunday night rescue is just another meeting of George HW Bush's friends who get together to bail out...little Georgie who screwed up again. Oh, 'cept this time it's the taxpayers who get to write the check?
IF the discourse is derailed to John McCain's service and Sarah Palin's whatever...I guess 2 x chronomosomes when the last 8 years has been an absolute friggin' gift of what to talk about at election time then, as others have said, the Dems don't deserve to win and America deserves what they get.
'I will never hold it against John McCain for "cracking" under torture.'
I wouldn't either but the GOP insists on running McCain as a POW war hero. He was not; he was just another whimpering collaborator. He would have washed out of flight status had his daddy not been an admiral. The way they treated Kerry four years ago, mocking his war wounds and service, means I will cut them no slack. If Kerry's record had been McCain's they would have called him a traitor (some did anyway.) If McCain wants to live by his "war" record he has to be ready to die by it - he collaborated willingly and regularly with the "enemy". That is reality. That is McCain - a bully who can dish it out but can't take it.
You are right about being distracted by identity politics and missing the issues, but the politics of the GOP are just lies and hypocrisy. The failures of the GOP are so voluminous we tend to glaze over when trying to enumerate them. They have accomplished nothing and destroyed everything they've touched since Reagan. The fact that Americans keep voting for them shows we are doomed.
I share your anger over the "Privatized Profits/Socialized Losses" policies of the party of privilege. Taxpayers write the check every time for the filthy rich - how do you think they got that way?
The 'Change is Coming' Johnny
Wow a pretty pit bull celebrity hockey mom
just across the Bering Strait
from the ‘cain raising Johnny's’ prodded bear
thank god the presidential pair seek peace not war
say ain't that ‘new speak’ kind of like
‘we will rock the Washington status quo’
Johnny you are the status quo
though that status may quiver a bit
with your rambling warrior queen
let’s hope she ain’t ‘misunderestimated’
Please keep her close to the teleprompter
But say you told us straight:
'Change is coming'
and it's going to be ‘to the beat of your own drum’?
Is that a Tom Tom Johnny?
Are you confusing a big stick with your poll Johnny?
Did your pole get a Palin boost Johnny?
but what about the dooms day clock Johnny?
Is it lookin pale in the moonlight as it moves to midnight?
The dogs of war are wagging Johnny.
Is it time to see the vet yet Johnny?
Who vets your speech writers Johnny?
You've got the world in a fright Johnny
It's not just your midnight Johnny
If Obama and the Democrats were a true oppositional party, they would be *slaughtering* the Republicans.
Instead, the Democrats are doing it again -- losing! ... See the following consensus of polls -- http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/ -- McCain is winning.
The Democratic Party is losing yet another presidential election!
The fact is, the Democratic Party would rather lose the Election (indeed they've lost so many!) -- they'd rather lose the Election than *guarantee* a victory by tapping into the millions of votes to the left of Barack Obama.
And why doesn't the Democratic Party tap into the millions of votes to the left of Barack Obama? ... Because, to do that, the Democratic Party would have to represent the broad interests of millions of Americans. And that not their function. The Democratic/Republican duopoly *doesn't* represent the broad interests of millions of Americans. Far from it. They represent, instead, the narrow interests of the oligarchic-few.
Occasionally, a few crumbs fall from the tables of the rich; there to be scruffed up by the poor and the middle class. But, then again, "CHANGE" and "COUNTRY FIRST" are far more effective slogans for the Democratic/Republican duopoly than "LET THEM EAT CRUMBS."
Why do you think Barack Obama has more corporate money behind him than John McCain? Because Corporate America wants Barack Obama to speak on behalf of millions of people??? Millions of people, worldwide, are being exploited by Corporate America. Who do you think is going to stop that exploitation, a status quo candidate bought and paid for by Corporate America?
The Democratic Party serves a crucial function for the ruling elite. Should things start "heating up" on the left, should economic turmoil, social unrest and the class tensions that inevitably occur given the inequalities inherent in a capitalist economy -- should such status quo-endangering rumblings develop into broad-based, progressive movements, the Democratic Party is there to co-opt, dilute and eventually betray those democratic, broad-based movements.
The first thing the Democratic Party says to the people commited to these movements is "T.I.N.A." -- "There Is No Alternative" -- you have no alternative to the two-party choice; so you need to let us, the Democratic Party, speak on your behalf.
The Democratic Party thus becomes a political "safety valve" for any status quo-endangering movements. Acting on behalf of the economic elite, the Democratic Party's historic role has been to make sure that potentially radical, revolutionary movements don't get out of hand: don't go any further than the confines of their oligarchic agenda.
The Democratic Party:
-- sold out the workingclass in the 1870s (re. Tammany Hall).
-- sold out the Populist movement in the 1890s.
-- sold out the labor movement in the 1930s.
-- sold out the civil rights movement.
-- sold out the environmentalist movement.
-- and sold out the antiwar movement -- many, many times.
The Democratic Party has betrayed the antiwar movement four times (count 'em FOUR times!) in the past six years.
1.) In 2002, the Democratic Party told the voting public that that year's Congressional elections would *not* be about whether the US should invade Iraq. Invading Iraq was a done-deal, a bipartisan decision. Instead, we were told, in no uncertain terms, that the 2002 Congressional elections would be about “other issues.” ... In other words, peace was, officially, “off the table.”
2.) In 2004, what could have been a national referendum on Iraq -- a war candidate, George Bush, versus a (sort of) peace candidate, Howard Dean -- soon became a choice between two war candidates, Bush and Kerry.
3.) In 2006, the Democrats captured both houses of Congress chiefly because millions of people were voting Democratic to end the War. In the days that followed, the Democratic leadership wasted no time making it clear that ending the War wasn’t going to happen.
4.) Which brings us to 2008 and Barack Obama, the king of the con men. ... Barack the peace candidate has now become Barack the warmonger. ... How thankful we should be that Barack Obama has “clarified” his position on Iraq -- his position now being that if the commanders in the field say we should stay in Iraq, we stay.
That Obama’s now-clarified position is essentially the same as that of John McCain and George Bush has yet to make an impact on mainstream media. Doubtless, it never will.
In short, Obama wants to be a war president just as bad as George Bush and John McCain want to be war presidents. Obama supports two wars now in progress -- Iraq and Afghanistan -- and has indicated his willingness to engage in two more wars --Iran and Pakistan -- with the use of nuclear weapons "not off the table."
The Democratic-Republican duopoly will never allow a national election to become a referendum on war or peace. Why? Because they know damn well that the Americna public will vote for peace every time.
-- We know Obama won't stand up to Big Oil.
-- We know Obama won't stand up to Big Pharma.
-- We know Obama won't stand up to the military-industrial complex. Like McCain, he wants to *increase* the Pentagon budget.
-- We know Obama won't stand up to the insurance lobby; in particular, the healthcare insurers. Like Hillary and McCain, Obama is against single-payer healthcare; albeit every advanced industrial country has it.
-- We know Obama won't stand up to criminally-complicit mainstream media.
-- We know Obama won't stand up to the Christian fundamentalists -- the Christian fundamentalist who want to turn the United States into a theocracy.
So what the hell is this CHANGE he's talking about?!
The only way *real* change will occur is when a third party movement becomes a genuine oppositional party -- an oppositional party vis-a-vis "The Business Party," a.k.a., the Democratic-Republican duopoly.
Ralph Nader's father was once asked what he thought of a third party. Mr. Nader replied: "I'd settle for two!"
Nader/Gonzalez '08!
I'm curious ws, would you explain how a third party reaches the state of "genuine oppositional party" status. What is your criteria? Do they need to reach the level of threeopoly?
I think you might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater on this one.
hmmmm, are you a troll?
Dead John McCain...very scary because then we get President Pailin!
You can always count on the stupidity of the American people. How else can you account for Reagan, two Bushes, and yes Willy Clinton who was more or a Republican than a Democrat.
Frank Bredell
Quoting from a recent article by Donna Volatile, entitled "The Obama Construct" http://www.counterpunch.org/volatile08282008.html --
"McCain is a war mongering bully who is in your face. Obama, on the other hand, is a smooth talker, whose own foreign policy positions aren't too far removed from McCain's, and one has to wonder which is worse, or indeed if there really is any difference at all. (The idea of voting for the lesser of two evils, McCain being the more evil, according to Obama supporters, seems ludicrous given that both of these candidates will ultimately do the bidding of their masters and the master plan is the same for both parties. This should be quite apparent by now and if it isn't, well, by all means vote for Obama and reap your just rewards. ... Do you really think 'Obomba's' idea of war will be kinder and gentler than McCain's?)
"Obama supporters will tell you “but he's honest and so sincere”, and “he's run a clean campaign” or “he's one of us” (that one always gets me) but they remain blinded to what is obvious to many on the radical left and many on the traditional conservative/libertarian right: Obama is a player and he is playing the game of the global elitists.
"Since he has all but secured his party's nomination, he's becoming more militaristic by the minute, in both tone and by his stance on several key Foreign policy issues.
"Obama and his VP Choice, Senator Biden, however, are not the crux of the problem but rather the mainstream voters are the problem as they continue to enable the corrupt two party system by consistently supporting the candidates being foisted upon them by controllers who select them in the first place and who are reinforced by the mainstream media machine in the second. These are not choices, these are lack of choices and if voters continue to participate in this sham, then they truly get what they deserve!
"With Obama supporters, the phrase “blinded by the light” takes on a whole new meaning. What part don't you get?! (This is the party threatening to place demonstrators at the DNC in recently erected detention camps and the party whose House majority leader, Nancy Pelosi, ridicules the anti-war movement and the homeless: “If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they'd be arrested for loitering but because they have 'Impeach Bush' across their chest, it's the First Amendment.” Funny how both parties get upset over that whole free speech thing.)
"What is most stunning about delusional Obama supporters is, when confronted by the aforementioned facts about Obama, they counter with this inane idea that Obama is only “saying” these things, he doesn't really mean them, it's only to get elected and once he gets elected the true altruistic essence of the man will save us all from tyranny! (Can we say reality check?!)
"Their indefensible support of this double talker is beyond comprehension. ...
"If you want to help put a stop to the rigged election game, if you really want to make a difference and you want your voice of disapproval to be heard, then VOTE! Vote for ANYBODY but the two buffoons, who have been pre-selected for you by the global elitist machine. Send a message, loud and clear: We refuse your choices.
"Vote Nader, vote McKinney, vote Ron Paul, vote Bob Barr, write in a vote, do whatever but don't support the corrupt system. Commit to a protest vote. Vote your conscience, do not vote under the “lesser of two-evils” threat because then YOU are part of the problem, not part of the possible solution. (We've been on this trip too many times before. From “hope and help is on the way” Kerry to Obama's constant harping on “Change We Can Believe In”, you have been sold a bill of goods from first to last. For all of Obama's talk of change, his words and actions show quite clearly, he means more of the same...)
"For those die hard Obama supporters who refuse to see the hand writing on the wall. ... YOU are the problem. ... For those die-hard Hillary Clinton supporters, promising to vote for McCain because your war-monger wasn't the chosen one, seek psychiatric help immediately.
"And one more thing. ... Evil is evil, bad is bad, wrong is wrong regardless of sex, race, creed or color.
"And another thing. ... If you vote for Obama, you are neither liberal nor are you progressive, so let's get that straight. If you vote for Obama, you are a neoliberal, so get use to it.
"Stop making excuses, there are none and time is running out as an even larger war may be in the making.
"Get those blinders off!
"This is your wake up call!"
(Words in parenthesis Ms. Volatile's)
Click here for the entire article --
http://www.counterpunch.org/volatile08282008.html
do you think Obama knows he is being controlled, as in he is a witting dupe, or do you think he is a free man in his mind and therefore a unwitting dupe?
opeluboy,
In your post, you wrote: "C'mon, someone tell us how voting for Nader is the answer."
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Voting in one election for an underdog candidate is not "the answer." What's needed is to build a genuine oppositional party. And that takes time.
Clearly, the Democratic Party is NOT an oppositional party vis-a-vis the Republican Party. The Democratic-Republican duopoly represents the narrow interests of the oligarchic-few. What's needed is a strong, viable oppositional party that represents the broad interests of the democratic-many.
And that's not going to happen by you just going to the polls, voting for Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney and then, when they lose, which they will at first, you say: "OK, I give up!"
Rather: building a third party movement takes time. And that process is long overdue. That process could have started *years* ago. ... Allow me, if I may, to elaborate ...
Ralph Nader declared his candidacy at the beginning of 2000 -- at a time when it looked like Gore would wipe the floor with the Republican candidate, George Bush. Indeed, that's exactly what *should* have happened. George Bush in 2000 was the most beatable Republican candidate since Alf Landon in 1936. And even *more* beatable when Kerry ran against him in 2004!
So let's say that in the last days of the 2000 election Gore was ahead in the polls by such a margin that it was likely he would be elected president. What would have happened is that more people would have voted for Ralph Nader. ... Why? Why would more people have voted for Ralph Nader than actually did vote for him? ... Because what *in fact* happened is that Al Gore ran such a miserable campaign that many people on the left, seeing in the final days of the 2000 campaign that the race between Gore and Bush was close, chickened out of voting for Ralph Nader and instead voted for Al Gore.
But let's say that in the last days of the 2000 campaign, Gore was clearly ahead in the polls and that, therefore, more people on the left went ahead and voted for Nader. Were that to have been the case, instead of getting just 2.7% of the vote, Nader could very likely have gotten 5%-6% of the vote. ... Certainly not an unreasonable calculation.
With that 5% of the vote, Nader would have qualified for millions of dollars in federal money. So that in 2004 he may have added to his 5%-6% vote-total and gotten perhaps 7%-8% of the popular vote. ... Again, not an unreasonable calculation.
Now in 2008, would it be unreasonable to expect that Nader (or perhaps Nader and McKinney, collectively) might get 10%-12% of the vote?
Were that to happen, the political establishment would *have* to reckon with a third party movement that garnered 10% to 12% of the vote.
My point is, a viable third party movement takes time to establish. But it has to start at some point. Indeed, it *must* start at some point, if we want to survive not just as a democracy but as a (now) highy vulnerable species.
That starting point could have been 2000, or even *before* 2000. BUT IT HAS TO START AT SOME POINT!
The Republican/Democratic duopoly -- America's Business Party -- is running a shell game; a shell game that has to be the envy of every con man, every shyster, every grifter who ever sat down between a pair of Florsheins. And the shell game is that the Democratic Party will always run a presidential candidate who is "slightly better" than the Republican candidate. ... That's the hook. ... But while this has been going on -- this "every-four-years-voting-for-the-lesser-of-the-two-evils" -- while this con has been going on, the political consensus, over the past four decades, has shifted dramatically to the right.
So much so that Richard Nixon in the 1970s signed more progressive legislation than Bill Clinton did in the 1990s!
Put another way -- George Bush didn't just suddenly "spring forth from the bowels of hell." George Bush is the logical result of a political consensus that has moved dramatically to the right.
And who's responsible for that dramatic lurch to the right? ... Answer: Those who buy into the notion of T.I.N.A. -- the idea that "There Is No Alternative" to the Democratic/Republican duopoly. Clearly, there is.
There is not "a genuine oppositional party" period?
Hmmm.....
I really think there is a genuine oppositional party, they just can't get anyone to let them rent a dance hall and we don't move in the elite circles with friends who have dance halls a plenty in their mansions.
All while the media looks on and comments on who brought who to the party.
Looks like we have to do our dance of opposition where no one is watching but those in opposition, in the back forty.
We can all get neeked and let our hair down. I'll set up a free diaper changing booth, for anyone that wants to be covered after they get their first taste of real American pie.
Heh.
This rerun gets too depressing. Every 4 years, the R's, through their media touts, outline exactly how they will go after the Dem nominee. And when it comes, Dems are left in the dust as if they didn't know what happened. This year, all the R's have been talking about going after Obama on leadership, experience and his liberal voting record. I saw Sarah Palin interviewed on NOW (pbs) recently. She was asked about the VP spot as her name was out there. Were the Dems too arrogant, stupid, uninformed that they had no plan for this? She of course said maybe later, not now and I was relieved. It was clear from that interview that she would be a very strong candidate.
And have the Dems ever heard of humor?
***************************** A Modest Proposal *********************************
I plan on voting for Ralph Nader. However, if my only choice was either voting for Barack Obama or else voting for a *dead* John McCain ... frankly, I'd vote for the corpse.
I mean, let's face it, a dead John McCain will do far less harm than a live John McCain or a live Barack Obama.
Why wait for the inevitable? We all have to die, don't we? ... So here's my modest proposal. ... Summon Dr. Kevorkian to the McCain campaign trail. Have the good doctor ease John McCain out of this travail of tears. Then prop up ole Johnny-Boy, freshly-deceased, and by gosh by golly, run that sucker for president!
In a heartbeat, the title of "lesser-of-the-two-evils" would switch from a live Barack Obama to a dead John McCain.
I mean, how much harm can a dead guy do???
Madison Avenue, ha! You think you're so feency-schmency with your clever campaign slogans. ... "CHANGE" ... "COUNTRY FIRST." ... Are you kidding? Forget about it. BOMB, BOMB, EMBALM, JOHN MCCAIN! That's the ticket!
Then, once he's embalmed, get a good Republican taxidermist and tour the corpse around the country.
Book that sucker on Oprah. Wheel that stiff onto the Jerry Springer Show. Nobody would lay a hand on him. How can you dislike a dead guy?
Listen, how many times have you dealt with a difficult person where, out of sheer exasperation, you felt like screaming: “Goddammit, shut the f*** up! Just sit there and don't say a word!" ... Well, sir, there's your perfect candidate -- John "Just-Sit-There-and-Be-Dead" McCain.
I guarantee you -- a dead John McCain in the White House would all but guarantee world peace and environmental sanity.
The same applies to Barack Obama. Either candidate would win in a landslide if they would just be willing to "run dead."
So, come on, John McCain; or else how about you, Barack Obama -- just do it -- JUST DROP DEAD!
Once cremated, a grateful nation will *sweep* you into office.
you know....in the bible when Jesus spoke of raising the dead, he was speaking of a spiritual state of being.
I think a genuine opposition party simply needs to be alive in the spiritual sense.
Ralph does not strike me as being alive in this sense,
Neither does Cynthia.
Maybe we have this whole thing completely wrong.
Maybe a genuine democracy must be direct and consistently active, where the people realize that democracy does not exist when we let someone else decide for us, and are in consequence always responsible for the kind of world we find ourselves living in.
I mean what else do we do that really matters that we only participate in every four years?
Obama has it right in this sense and this may be the one crucial bit of oxygen in a political environment that is deficient of that life giving element.
It's about us, not them.
McCain's approach, is I will work for you this time, I promise.
Obama's approach, you have to work for yourself this time, or I can't promise.
This country is not theirs, it's ours.
C'mon, someone tell us how voting for Nader is the answer.
The Naderites want us to vote for him and the Greens want us to vote for McKinney yet neither of them can explain how Nader or McKinney can get their agenda past a Democratic or Republican congress.
Naderites and Greenies have offered nothing of substance and in fact some Naderites and Greenies openly acknowledge that neither Nader or McKinney stand a chance of being elected but say that's just fine.
Why talk about something that doesn't exist? Nobody thinks Nader or McKinney will be elected. I would think about 100% of everybody "openly acknowledges" that.
Actually, McKinney and Nader are the only ones who do offer something of substance in the progressive line. It is the unfortunate state of our nation that both major parties do all they can to bury it for the purpose of keeping hypocritical corporatism afloat.
Well, it won't be buried and others have to keep that "something of substance" afloat. It won't happen by fitting in neatly with corporate plans and making everybody happy and safe. People have to be made uncomfortable, which I am glad to see is happening.
(Personally, I'm also glad the Free Soil and Populist Parties didn't give up prematurely, although they didn't achieve most of their goals by a long shot. It was worth it, maybe even necessary.)
Correction: The Populist Party (coalition of farmers alliances and labor -- sounds good, right?) did fold prematurely to the detriment of the nation.
It all boils down to the VP debate. If Biden can draw Palin out and show how repellant she is and incompetent for the substance of the job, McSame is through. Show that Palin is a tool to obtain a McSame presidency and game over.
The trick is to attack McCain through the person of Palin and to do it in a way that doesn't insult women. If Biden appears to be condescending to Palin as a woman, Obama is dead.
Problem is, I'm not sure Biden can do it.
I'm not sure he can either. In fact, I don't think Biden can go through a debate without being condescending in a Washington-insider kind of way that will easily fill in exactly what the Republicans are looking for vis a vis Palin.
I think Palin was specifically chosen with Biden in mind, and I think it has the potential of being a brilliant choice.
Biden, however, was an abysmal choice; and, as one of my buddies says, possibly another milestone on a slow Obama train wreck.
I am curious to know what this (to be condescending to Palin as a woman) would look like. Calling her out on her ridiculous, unsustainable, unrealistic (Abstinence Only, Pregnant 17 year old daughter) political stances have NOTHING to do with her being a woman. It has EVERYTHING to do with her being an idiot. I am a woman. I did not use my ovaries to figure out that this woman is beyond unqualified to become the Vice President, I used my brain. This is ALL Obama/Biden have to do.... But will they....
I'll be frank. There are male idiots and there are female idiots. Up until a few years ago I actually had a very idealized view of women, which is sexist in its own way. I though all women were more insightful and idealistic than men. (I'm a man, btw.) Of course, this is utter nonsense. There are horrid unprincipled and ignorant women just as there are male counterparts. Now, just ask yourself, what kind of woman would switch a vote from Hillary to Palin, just because she's a woman? Answer: an ignorant, unprincipled woman, a woman who's looking for any kind of stupid superficial "slight" from Biden. You may think this is simplistic, you may even think it's an offensive characterization, but if it's not dealt with pronto...we're going to have 4 or 8 years of McCain, and then 4 or 8 years more of Palin.
PLEASE send this to the Obama people...you are so incisively right on!
David is asking a liberal (according to Repugs) to become a conservative. I hope maybe just this once until he wins the election because conservatives can't govern.
Why Conservatives Can't Govern
By Alan Wolfe, Washington Monthly. Posted July 6, 2006.
Bush's presidency and Congress are imploding, not despite their conservatism, but because of it.
Search hard enough and you might find a pundit who believes what George W. Bush believes, which is that history will redeem his administration. But from just about everyone else, on the right as vehemently as on the left, the verdict has been rolling in: This administration, if not the worst in American history, will soon find itself in the final four. Even those who appeal to history's ultimate judgment halfheartedly acknowledge as much. One seeks tomorrow's vindication only in the context of today's dismal performance.
About the only failure more pronounced than the president's has been the graft-filled plunder of GOP lawmakers -- at least according to opinion polls, which in May gave the GOP-controlled Congress favorability ratings in the low 20s, about 10 points lower than the president's. This does not necessarily translate into electoral Armageddon; redistricting and other incumbency-protection devices help protect against that. But even if many commentators think that Republicans may retain control over Congress, very few think they should.
Eager to salvage conservatism from the wreckage of conservative rule, right-wing pundits are furiously blaming right-wing politicians for failing to adhere to right-wing convictions. Libertarians such as Bruce Bartlett fret that under Republican control, government has not shrunk, as conservatives prescribe, but has grown.
Insiders like Peggy Noonan complain that Republicans have become -- well, insiders; they are too focused on retaining power and too disconnected from the base whose anger pushed them into power. Idealistic younger conservatives bewail the care and feeding of the K Street beast. Paleocons Pat Buchanan and Robert Novak blame neocons William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer for the debacle that is Iraq.
Through all these laments there pulsates a sense of desperation: A conservative president and an even more conservative Congress must be repudiated to enable genuine conservatism to survive. Sure, the Bush administration has failed, all these voices proclaim. But that is because Bush and his Republican allies in Congress borrowed big government and foreign-policy idealism from the left. The ideas of Woodrow Wilson and John Maynard Keynes, from their point of view, have always been flawed. George W. Bush and Tom DeLay just prove it one more time.
Conservative dissidents seem to have done an admirable job of persuading each other of the truth of their claims. Of course, many of these dissidents extolled the president's conservative leadership when he was riding high in the polls. But the real flaw in their argument is akin to that of Trotskyites who, when confronted with the failures of communism in Cuba, China and the Soviet Union, would claim that real communism had never been tried. If leaders consistently depart in disastrous ways from their underlying political ideology, there comes a point where one has to stop just blaming the leaders and start questioning the ideology.
The collapse of the Bush presidency, in other words, is not just due to Bush's incompetence (although his administration has been incompetent beyond belief). Nor is it a response to the president's principled lack of intellectual curiosity and pitbull refusal to admit mistakes (although those character flaws are certainly real enough). And the orgy of bribery and special-interest dispensation in Congress is not the result of Tom DeLay's ruthlessness, as impressive a bully as he was. This conservative presidency and Congress imploded, not despite their conservatism, but because of it.
Contemporary conservatism is first and foremost about shrinking the size and reach of the federal government. This mission, let us be clear, is an ideological one. It does not emerge out of an attempt to solve real-world problems, such as managing increasing deficits or finding revenue to pay for entitlements built into the structure of federal legislation. It stems, rather, from the libertarian conviction, repeated endlessly by George W. Bush, that the money government collects in order to carry out its business properly belongs to the people themselves. One thought, and one thought only, guided Bush and his Republican allies since they assumed power in the wake of Bush vs. Gore: taxes must be cut, and the more they are cut -- especially in ways benefiting the rich -- the better.
But like all politicians, conservatives, once in office, find themselves under constant pressure from constituents to use government to improve their lives. This puts conservatives in the awkward position of managing government agencies whose missions -- indeed, whose very existence -- they believe to be illegitimate.
Contemporary conservatism is a walking contradiction. Unable to shrink government but unwilling to improve it, conservatives attempt to split the difference, expanding government for political gain, but always in ways that validate their disregard for the very thing they are expanding. The end result is not just bigger government, but more incompetent government.
"Ideas," a distinguished conservative named Richard Weaver once wrote, "have consequences." Americans have learned something about the consequences of conservative ideas during the Bush years that they never had to confront in the more amiable Reagan period. As a way of governing, conservatism is another name for disaster. And the disasters will continue, year after year, as long as conservatives, whose political tactics are frequently as brilliant as their policy-making is inept, find ways to perpetuate their power.
http://www.alternet.org/story/37947/?page=1
Why clutter up the CD forum by posting an whole article? An excerpt and/or a link would do. If everyone posted their entire pet articles, there wouldn't be space here for anything else.
Easy, Rich, you've used more than your share of bandwidth here, as have I, I fear...I enjoyed the article, BTW.
"failures of communism in Cuba"
You can correctly say communism failed in China, and even maybe the USSR, but you can't say that about Cuba... Cuba hasn't had an opportunity to be left alone to pursue the goals of their revolution... without outside interference by the US, who knows what could have been for Cuba.
Anyways... slightly off topic as related to this article.
P.O.W.--Prototype of W
YES, David, you are RIGHT ON!!
We HAVE to get these observations out to more people.
And YES, Obama really needs to get tough and fight back!!
This noble, take-the-high-road attitude of his, which worked really well in the early days of his campaign, needs to be jettisoned now for something with more grit. HE has the ears of the media (well, at least more than we do), so he needs to take advantage.
We're hungry for him to do it!!
And, like you say above here, I am scared.
I'm truly frightened to see that the corporate media & gov't propaganda schemes are THIS effective. Saddened, because I often feel as though I'm pointing to little green men when I try to explain the fact of US propaganda to other folks (even to other progressives).
It's very difficult to know how to keep up with the lies & GOP media spin.
I don't want to believe the polls that say McCain is ahead (maybe I'm grasping at straws here), but I bet that many American's were simply waiting for a good enough reason not to vote for Obama ("A black man . . .?" Shudder).
So, it seems that they will gladly vote for the "pretty lady".
Content, issues? Huh?
We are in BIG touble.
"I often feel as though I'm pointing to little green men when I try to explain the fact of US propaganda to other folks (even to other progressives)."
You don't understand that this is propaganda... do you?
If Obama loses, it will be his own fault. Put the responsibility directly where it lies. However, it won't be because he isn't "tough enough". The fault simply lies in the fact that he threw a significant percentage of potential support under the bus... including me and many other progressives towards whom he had previously made promising overtures. Turned out he believed that he did not need us any longer. We were dispensable.
SURPRISE!!! That 11 point swing got you scratchin' your head? Can't figure it out?
I'm learning to live under the bus and have no intentions to leave until after the election. I know how to "stay!". You believe he will win by being tough and going after Republican voters? Sorry to pop that absurd balloon, but the only way he stands a remote chance, is to deal honestly with those of us who refuse to buy into his Republican wannabe politics. We do NOT want more of the same, and that's all he is offering us.
His exclusionary practices will lead to his defeat. I understand your fear. You *should* be afraid. You are backing a loser. He took the dive (along with most other cowardly Democrats), right after locking up the nomination. Palin/McCain will be a total nightmare, but it will be of Obama's making... and yours if you do not demand an honest shift in rhetoric and action.
... don't know about anyone else, but I've had enough Clintonesque finger wagging for one political season. Point your finger elsewhere.
Rocky the Lying Squirrel and Bullwinkle Kilmia Moose for co-President!!
.
written by Ralph Nader:
Politics of Avoidance
The “politics of avoidance” is receiving a great deal of media attention during this period of national political conventions. Unfortunately, the newspapers and television programs do not use the phrase: “the politics of avoidance.” Together with John McCain and Barack Obama, members of the press have become used to living the “politics of avoidance” every day by not asking, talking or reporting about the essential core of what politics should be about—power!
Power! Who has it? Who doesn’t have it? Who should have less of it and who should have more of it? What does concentrated power do to the everyday life of the people as workers, patients, consumers, taxpayers, voters, shareholders and citizens?
Just use these and other power yardsticks and watch how thin and how superficial daily political reporting, even by the best of the press, can become.
( continued at ) http://www.nader.org/
.
How to steal an election: You and your media friends create the perception that you're more popular than you are so beating the polls in crucial districts has an explanation plausible to the propagandized masses. I can see it already. In crucial districts in critical battleground states the INDEPENDENT WOMEN VOTERS defied the polls by deciding, only after entering the voting booth, to vote for the only woman on either major party ticket! You don't have to actually get the votes. There just has to be some story about how you could. And the rest is history (Ohio and Florida).
Injustice. Sheer injustice. The Republican Party has become the party of sheer injustice. When this group (which I think should be marginalized in our society just like the Nazi party) insinuates something about Obama that is not true there should be a million dollar lawsuit each time for defamation. These people, Republicans, are hell-bent on bringing down America for their own profit. One day, after it has been abolished by an angry populace, we will be able to run this country on more of a basis of common sense and kindness (what Republicans would call naivete and weakness.) In the meantime we have these games by vicious criminals employed by the wealthiest one percent of the population. Sad and shameful and ultimately criminal is what the Republican Party is.
DMG should contact Obama NOW.
What a brilliant and incisvie article.
Could we not have this prof. out in the MSM?
When is the media going to question this windbag Pain? Are we voting for someone based on what she belted out at the convention? What are her Haliburton connections? So she is a ice hockey mom - is she a good one if her daughter is not married and pregnant? If republicans legislate bearing personal responsibility how is this mother of five(?) on the ticket? And what are they going to be doing if she is going to be in the whitehouse or in Ossentia? Isnt the absence of parents from kids lives why we have so many issues with kids?
Jon Stewart really ran one of his best video montages on the Friday after the republican convention ended.
Love
Zero
How about her connection to Alaskan separatism? How come noone mentions that? What, not fair?-----------------------------lizard
Ah, us Canadians have had 51 seats of parliament filled with Separatists for a while now... They've actually proved to be somewhat effective opposition, and what prevented Harper's neo-fascist party from having a majority government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2006
It's not the separatist party per se that offends, but the Republican hypocrisy of running as "Country First" with an "Alaska Firster" on the ticket. I'd welcome any brand of opposition at this point.
I often feel like I'm living in Alice's Wonderland. For example, the U.S. Government just effected the largest financial bailout in world history, proof that the economy is in a shambles, and "investors" are ... celebrating!
I believe McCain is not what he claims to be. Read "John McCain: War Hero or North Vietnam's Go-To Collaborator?" ( http://www.counterpunch.org/valentine06132008.html ).
Of course, if the current decider keeps provoking the Russians and Iranians, we may not have to worry about the election anyway!
Dave
http://daveeriqat.wordpress.com/
Anyone who can read should know by now that McCain cracked in prison and was not a hero but a collaborator. "Songbird" was Radio Hanoi's go-to apologist. Broadcast this far and wide.
I will never forgive the scumbag Republicans for the way they ridiculed Kerry's Viet Nam service in 2004, and I'm no Kerry fan. But nothing is off limits to them, and I'm sick of the "hands-off McCain" attitude everyone else has. He is a womanizer still, was a failure at the USNA, he crashed three airplanes under suspicious circumstances before even being sent to Viet Nam (and would have washed out of flight status had his daddy been anybody but an Admiral), he started the fire on the USS Forrestal which killed 150 sailors, and he cracked in prison camp and became what the Republicans would eagerly call a traitor if he were not a member of the GOP.
DMG asks: Can Republicans use the old magic successfully one more time? Has the American public, even an angry American public, been dumbed down sufficiently in recent decades to vote against its own interests, yet one more time, even under conditions like those of 2008?
Answer: Yes.
DMG asks: After all this, are people still so lacking in critical faculties to discern the choices here? Can they really be so readily fooled, yet again?
Answer: Yes.
I had hoped that the long nightmare might end come 1/20/09. With the selection of Palin as VP, I now know my hopes were for naught, and I'm genuinely scared. Like DMG, I'm crying. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I really am.
DMG asks: Aren't they smart enough to get this?!?! The thought of another weak-kneed Democratic presidential candidate getting rolled by a GOP dirty politics machine is too much to possibly stomach, especially in 2008, when a candidate pretty much just needs to show up in order to win....
Answer: No, they aren't smart enough to get this.
If the Republicans manage to win with the age-addled war criminal who has flip-flopped on every issue except those related to his love of war, any war, and the woefully ignorant, equally trigger-happy, church lady beauty queen, it will demonstrate nothing less than that the Republicans, for their corporate masters and with the aid of a compliant corporate media, with an assist from the deranged right-wing echo chamber, can elect any two individuals they wish to, regardless of what pair the Democrats send against them. If they can get these two incompetent and ignorant lunatics elected, then I would guess they could just as easily succeed with a pair of recently paroled rapists and murderers, just as long as their corporate masters feel confident the nominees would follow orders.
What it comes down to is that all Republican officeholders are merely puppets, with the corporate oligarchs pulling the strings. And Democrats, who speak of justice and equality and other such disturbing topics, are never quite as trusted to behave like good little obedient ciphers.
At this point in the race, if I may borrow Bill Clinton's phrase, it’s a contact sport. That's saying a lot for me since I never particularly liked Clinton in the first place. Fight image for image. They show 9/11 we show Katrina. Show them Bush with McShame with that birthday cake post Katrina on August 29th 2005. There are people who just don't think rationally but who actually get a natural disaster like that. Half of us live about 50 miles from the shore so that should hit home with a lot of voters.
I hae wondered for a long time if Boom Boom McCain actually wants to be Preesident. I know he will do anything to become president, and he feels he deserves it, but I get no sense that he actually wants to do the job. And picking Palin supports my opinion.
As DMG points out, putting Palin in the co-pilot's seat at this point in time is reckless to say the least. Even if you have no problems with her politics (and I sure do), it is hard to imagine defending such a move except as a symbolic gesture.
Question for Boom Boom - If you were choosing a flight crew for the most important mission you will ever fly, who would you want in the co-pilot's seat?
War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.
"...McCain actually wants to be President. I know he will do anything to become president, and he feels he deserves it, but I get no sense that he actually wants to do the job."
Exactly like George W Bush, who actually has spent about two years of his eight-year reign of terror on vacation. Imagine how relieved he was when Cheney came to him and said, "Don't worry kid, I've got it" after his VP "search". I can't imagine Cheney letting go now.
Anybody who believes that McClone SELECTED Palin will certainly be interested in buying my oceanfront property in Scottsdale.
Just as the Republican leadership and noise machine pulled McClone into line after he became the presumptive nominee (they said he was not conservative enough, so he altered his platform to become the conservative they want him to be), the Republican leadership selected Palin because she is an evangelical who will assure that the oil companies get whatever they want. Like the reluctant groom, all Mcclone needed to do was show up at the wedding, er convention on time. Everything was already planned by the in-laws, er party leadership.
Watching and listening to palin since the convention, I've had the distinct impression that it isn't the VP position she's got her eye on at all. If I'd missed out on all of the primary and convention crap and came into it now, I'd believe she was the actual candidate for the presidency, and that mccain was her VP running mate. And I'm sure they know if "they" could run the country through bush, palin's inexperience is totally insignificant.
McCain is AHEAD in the polls. The Democrats would have won this election in a landslide if they had only renounced all of their Republican-lite b.s. and championed progressive causes. This election is going to be close. An honest election, Obama ekes out a win; dishonest, McCain will inflict himself on us for the next four years.
I'm excited by Stephane Dion, the Liberal leader in Canada. Their election is October 14th. I sure hope they throw Harper out once and for all!!
I too am excited about the upcoming Canadian election... unfortunately, I wouldn't count Harper out anytime soon. We have quite a few right-wing dumbasses here too that'll vote against their own interests. The reason why Harper called the election now (in violation of his own 'fixed-election date' law), is that he's polling well right now. Chances are, we'll end up with another minority government. My biggest fear is a Harper majority. If that happens, we're fucked and we'll be joining you Americans in the North American police state.
One major difference between Canada and the US is the length of time for campaigning for the election. Harper called the election yesterday, and it's 36 days until the people go to the polls. The US on the other hand, has turned it into a super long and drawn out affair where sooooo much can happen to change public opinion. With such a short election cycle, less damage can be done. I think this drawn out campaign is what allows McCain to be ahead in the polls.
I took a trip back through Alberta to visit the folks. Harper support is overwhelming there as it is in Saskatchewan. The Conservatives will get over half the seats here IN BC and will likely pick up most of rural Ontario.
The key then becomes Quebec where he tries to garner the seperatist vote by promising to devolve more power to that province.
Meaning I have top hope the Bloc Quebecois can hold him off.
Imagine that....supporting Seperatists in order to save Canada...
PK