Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Palin Keeps Lying, and Lying, and …
What kind of person tells a self-aggrandizing lie, gets called on it, admits publicly that the truth is not at all what she originally claimed-and then goes out and starts telling the original lie again without changing a word?
Sarah Palin is beginning to seem like quite an unusual woman, and I'm not talking about her love of guns and "snow machines," her faith, her family or any of the presumably non-elite attributes that we in the "elite media" are accused of savaging. Wrongly accused, I should add; reporters are doing nothing more sinister than trying to find out who she is, how she thinks and what she has done in office.
One deeply troubling thing we're learning about Palin is that, as far as she's concerned, unambiguous fact doesn't appear to rise even to the level of inconvenience.
I'm sorry, but to explain my point I have to make another visit-my last, I hope-to the never-built, $398-million "Bridge to Nowhere" that was to join the town of Ketchikan, Alaska, with its airport on the other side of the Tongass Narrows.
You'll recall that in her Republican convention speech, Palin burnished her budget-hawk credentials by claiming she had said "thanks but no thanks" to a congressional earmark that would have paid most of the cost. A quick check of the public record showed that Palin supported the bridge when she was running for governor, continued to support it once she took office and dropped her backing only after the project -- by then widely ridiculed as an example of pork-barrel spending -- was effectively dead on Capitol Hill.
In her interview with ABC's Charles Gibson, Palin 'fessed up. It was "not inappropriate" for a mayor or a governor to work with members of Congress to obtain federal money for infrastructure projects, she argued. "What I supported," she said, "was a link between a community and its airport."
Case closed. Except that on Saturday, days after the interview, Palin said this to a crowd in Nevada: "I told Congress thanks but no thanks to that Bridge to Nowhere-that if our state wanted to build that bridge, we would build it ourselves."
That's not just a lie, but an acknowledged lie. What she actually told Congress was more like, "Gimme the money for the bridge" -- and then later, after the whole thing had become an embarrassment, she didn't object to using the money for other projects.
I'm not shocked to learn that politicians sometimes lie. To cite an example that comes immediately to mind, John McCain's campaign ads attacking Barack Obama have taken such liberties that even Karl Rove says he wonders if they've gone too far. But it's weird for a politician -- or anyone else, really -- to maintain that an assertion is true after admitting that it isn't true.
Maybe Palin cynically believes she can keep using the "no thanks" line and manage to stay one step ahead of the truth police. Maybe she calculates that audiences would rather believe her than their lying eyes. Or maybe she really believes her own fantasy-based version of events. Maybe the Legend of Sarah Palin has become, on some level, more real to her than actual history.
And quite a legend it's turning out to be. The Washington Post reported Sunday that as mayor of tiny Wasilla, Palin pressured the town librarian to remove controversial books from the shelves, cut funds for the town museum but somehow found the money for a new deputy administrator slot, and told city employees not to talk to reporters.
And The New York Times reported Sunday that as governor, Palin appointed a high-school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to a $95,000-a-year job as head of the state Division of Agriculture. Havemeister "cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency," the Times reported, noting her as one of at least five schoolmates Palin has given high-paying state government jobs.
Nothing against cows. Nothing against high-school BFFs and being true to your school. But a different picture of Sarah Palin is beginning to emerge. The McCain campaign would like us to see a straight-talking, gun-toting, moose-eviscerating, lipstick-wearing frontierswoman. Instead, we're beginning to discern an ambitious, opportunistic politician who makes no bones about rewarding friends and punishing those who stand in her way-and who believes that truth is nothing more, and nothing less, than what she says it is.
- Posted in
205 Comments so far
Show AllQuoting from a recent article by Bill Van Auken, entitled: "The Palin Interviews: Ignorance in the Service of the Ultra-Right" --
"... revealing has been the reaction of the Obama campaign and the Democratic Party, which have given Palin a pass on everything said in the interview except her attempt to once again identify herself with the runner-up in the Democratic primaries, Senator Hillary Clinton. An angry reaction issued over the name of Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz had more the character of a protest over brand name infringement than any substantive response to Palin’s positions.
"Ignored in the Democratic response was Palin’s presentation of political views that are significantly to the right of the Bush administration, including foreign policy positions that pose the clear threat of a nuclear third world war. ...
"Neither the media nor the Democrats have any interest in exposing this dirty secret of American politics, that the most significant popular “base” of the Republican Party-- the most consistent defender of the corporations and finance capital -- is composed of extreme right-wing and fascistic elements, including the most reactionary tendencies within Christian fundamentalism.
"Under normal circumstances, Palin’s ignorance of international relations and limited political understanding would have disqualified her for the vice-presidential nomination of one of the two main big business parties. The sole reason for McCain’s choosing her as his running mate was the desire to “energize” this ultra-right base.
"The Democrats have chosen to ignore this issue entirely. Nor have they issued any response to Palin’s statements regarding war on Russia and Iran. Having embraced the “surge” in Iraq, Obama is running not as an antiwar candidate in any sense, but as the advocate of a more strategically thought-out and even more robust form of American militarism. As such, he has issued his own bellicose statements against Russia, Iran and Pakistan.
"That Palin could even be considered as the Republican Party’s vice presidential candidate is testimony not only to the extreme right-wing trajectory of this party itself, but also to the spinelessness of the Democrats and their inability and unwillingness to wage any serious attack on either the Republican Party or the ultra-right."
Click here for the entire article -- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/paln-s15.shtml
If advocating leftist ideals is deemed to produce a score of 100 on a 100-point scale, and advocating fascism produces a score of 0, my estimates (of course anybody can play this game and it is all conjecture) are that Republicans on average score a 5, with McCain a 3, Palin a 2, Bush a 1, and Cheney and DeLay a 0, while Dems on average score a 10, with Kucinich a 40, Kennedy a 25, Edwards a 20, Obama a 15, and Hillary and Biden a 10. Any Dem who tries to score above a 15 will be relentlessly bashed by the corporate media, including the late-night comedians, and be abandoned by the rest of the corporate oligarchy, and their poll numbers will drop. And if the Dem tries to score above a 25, the Dem will be bashed by other Dems as well and ridiculed as "irrelevant" and a "crackpot" and their national poll numbers will fall through the floor. Nader might score above 50, but he would be completely savaged and almost certainly destroyed by the corporate media if his numbers ever started to indicate he was a serious threat (and probably shot if that did not work).
That is the political environment we live in and it will not change until we have a massive cultural shift. Some think that continued Republican rule will accelerate and facilitate such a shift, while others think it allows the worst of the fascists to build up barriers against such a shift and in the meantime make life more miserable for most Americans and more humans. But what sways me is that Republicans appear to be significantly more reckless and more willing to create risks of nuclear war and human extinction or long-term environmental degradation, sometimes just for slight political advantage or for limited financial gains for their cronies, for they not only belong to the more irresponsible of the corporatist parties, but also appear to be the less knowledgable and less intelligent.
"Any Dem who tries to score above a 15 will be relentlessly bashed by the corporate media, including the late-night comedians"
The Daily Show might not find a way to bash someone whose policies actually make sense for a change...
I think Stewart's "Daily Show" and Colbert hold off on the bashing until the Dem scores over 50. But the rest of them were all over John Edwards for his haircut and Dennis Kucinich for his UFO sighting. They had been all over Gore in 2000, uncritically accepting the media's twisted version of what Gore said about the Internet, when the Gore of 2000 never could have scored above a 20, while they pretty much left Bush alone, even though he was floating a boatload of obvious lies and was quite a cartoonish figure besides.
Didn't Carter also talk about seeing a UFO?
Yes, Carter did report seeing a UFO. If he had been anywhere near Kucinich on the progressive/leftist scale, that would likely have been used to brand him a "crackpot."
I've seen a couple of UFO's. I damn sure couldn't tell what they were. They were objects, they were flying and I couldn't figured out what they were, thus they were unidentified to me. Big deal.
Rickster
Exactly. It is UNIDENTIFIED. He did not claim to see space aliens.
Joe
Well I think that we might frame our ideals as human ideals rather than some semi-cultist realities like leftist or rightist. I mean really those labels don't serve to do anything but separate one half of human ideals from all other human ideals which is silly they all amount to the same thing, ideals and I doubt that what is wrong should be associated with what is wrong with either side.
It seems that the republican failure to ideals tend to serve extremist corrupted corporations, and fears and prejudices buried in nominal Christian groups. This could in no way account for the majority of humans ideals on the right.
One can simply find an inclusive unifying word or words that can encompass blanket ideals for all people to aspire toward like human rights or democracy.
As I am sure you recognize, the original term "left" came from the seating of the French Assembly and came to represent those who believed in the ideals of the French Revolution, the most central of which was equality of all human beings (justice and brotherhood -- including sisterhood I suspect -- being the others), regardless of birth or position, meaning equality in the way they were treated by the government and equality in the way they were treated by each other. And many leftists believe, and I certainly believe, that is the most fundamental human right of all. Also, I believe along with many leftists that extreme disparity in wealth leads to great disparity in economic and political power and that makes real equality impossible and democracy an illusion.
I know the term "left" has been corrupted over the centuries, but I believe that its most basic meaning remains "equality." I know there is no consensus of those who claim to represent the left in the US or the world, but the leftist ideals I was referring to in the above comment included (1) reversal of privatization in general and the creation of government-run transportation and communication industries, possibly more, possibly including the development of a completely socialist economy, and at the very least heavy regulation of private industry; (2) equal educational opportunity for all children regardless of parents' income, nationality or geographic location, educational level, race, sex, and religion; (3) free university education for all who can pass the entrance examinations and free job training for the others; (4) some basic guarantees of nutritious food, decent shelter, and quality medical care (somewhat controversial for many in the US); (5) equal opportunity for meaningful employment; (6) prohibition of corporations or at the least a complete redefinition of corporate powers and requirements; (7) prohibition of obtaining income merely through ownership of assets or at the least extremely high taxes on such income (very controversial for most in the US); (8) limitation on compensation disparity for an hour of work, i.e. the most highly compensated individual receives a per hour compensation that is less than Y times what the least compensated individual receives, with Y something less than 10 (extemely controversial for most in the US); (9) complete public financing of political campaigns (somewhat controversial in the US); and (10) a pacifistic and cooperative foreign policy, ending a policy of bullying and plunder, with removal of virtually all or all US overseas bases and reduction in military spending of 90 percent or more (very controversial in the US). There could be more, but these positions represent the general idea.
Well my God you must be scaring the right to death using that label. I wonder where the term right comes from as a label, could it be a fight or flight reaction to be as far away from what you have expressed above that left was intended to represent?
Thank you so much for taking the time to share this information with me, I was totally ignorant of the origination of the label left.
Yes, the "right" is composed of those (who were seated on the right in the French Assembly) who are against the "left," and that primarily has been those of money and property (including those of the aristocracy in France after the revolution) who want to conserve old traditions and old rules, the most important of which is the golden rule -- "The one with the gold makes the rules." And we all know that if the one with the gold makes the rules, those rules are designed to help the one with the gold get even more gold and make even more rules.
Oh, and I would add an "oops" in that in my comment above I incorrectly stated that the goals of the revolution were "justice, equality, and brotherhood" when the correct answer was "liberty, equality, and brotherhood" ("Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite"). I need to learn to always Google first!
Yah, and now that the gold standard has been thrown by the wayside, they are getting more what? Promissory notes? Looks like too many promissory notes is not at all like too many bars of gold. Should I laugh or should I cry?
If the worst happens, I guess we can find small comfort in knowing that so many of the Wall Street ghouls ruined their own fortunes as they drove the rest of us into poverty. I would feel a lot better if I thought schadenfreude was edible and nutritious.
Hah! Good one!
And where would Ghandi or Jesus be on the scale?
But I definitely agree, the conservatives have redefined the scale, so that compassionate progressives are seen as off the scale where in fact they are only a 75.
And using 'average' is not a way to approach solutions. There is either a correct solution or not. Just basing it on uninformed opinion of 100 random people is not the right approach. You wouldn't ask 100 random people off the street how to conduct your upcoming surgery.
What some call 'liberal' press (like New York Times and Washington Post) is really at best a 30, and maybe even a 20 because of the irreparable harm they have created by allowing a corrupted war criminal president to rule unchallenged.
Palin would rather ban a book than an automatic weapon.
And Obama would rather ban Nader than McCain.
Go figure.
I don't know about Jesus and Ghandi, but I would put the New York Times, as a whole, at no more than 20 and the Washington Post at no more than 15, though there are individual columnists well above those scores.
www.NotOneMore.US [September 17th, 2008 1:30 am], I appreciate your points, especially about averages and asking uninformed people on the street for their opinion on the best way to perform an appendectomy.
But where in the world did you get the idea that Obama would rather ban Nader than McCain? You need a course in enemy identification, just like they used to give Air Raid Wardens in WWII -- you are mistaking Allies for foes.
put lipstick on a pig, and it becomes a moose. sarah palin is completely insane.
she is a charter member of the "what you see and what you know are two different things" club
if anyone is familiar with CS Lewis' book "The Magician's Nephew", compare ms sarah to jardis, queen of charn . . .
Yes, totally insane and mentally ill much like bush. There's a good piece on Onlinejournal called "McCain-Palin: A Bridge to Hell". It's well written and well worth the read. I'd put the link here but I'm not sure if CommonDreams deletes links as some blogging sites do.
I think they only block you for having 3 or more links.
Also your name can be a link - but I'm not sure how to do that.
-- 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.
-- Given the Palin nomination, we know Obama and the Democrats aren't going to expose, as Bill Van Auken put it in the above article, "the dirty secret of American politics, that the most significant popular “base” of the Republican Party -- the most consistent defender of the corporations and finance capital -- is composed of extreme right-wing and fascistic elements, including the most reactionary tendencies within Christian fundamentalism."
So what the hell is this "CHANGE" Obama and the Democrats are talking about?!
The economic elite realize that the hardships the masses are currently suffering are causing a great deal of turmoil and social unrest. What they sense is that unless the angry and outrage of general population zare checked and, in turn, neutralized, that that anger and outrage may spin out of control.
Enter Barack Obama. ... Barack Obama, one of two corporatist candidates -- the one who can put a "happy face" on the same-old political and economic exploitation, here and throughout the world.
The ruling class also realizes that the Bush Admininstration "made mistakes" in terms of their foreign policy. Those "mistakes" (in reality, war crimes) have led to a disaster in the Middle East for US economic interests -- "US economic interests" being, in reality, codewords for the narrow interests of the oligarchic-few.
Therefore, what's needed is a "new face" on US imperialism: a "happy face." And that new, happy face is Barack Obama.
How else can one explain all the corporate money behind Barack Obama. (NOTE WELL: Barack Obama has more corporate money behind him than John McCain.)
Here are two questions for you ...
1.) True or False: Corporate America has given Barack Obama millions of dollars (more money than they've given John McCain!), because Corporate America wants Barack Obama and the Democratic Party to represent the interests of the "democratic-many."
2.) True or False: Corporate America has given Barack Obama millions of dollars (more money than they've given John McCain!), because Corporate America wants Barack Obama and the Democratic Party to represent the interests of the "oligarchic-few."
Quoting from a recent article by Donna Volatile:
"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?)"
Words in parenthesis Ms. Volatile's. Click here for the entire article -- -- http://www.counterpunch.org/volatile08282008.html
Vote your values. Vote your conscience. DON'T VOTE FOR REPRESENTATIVES OF THE OLIGARCHIC-FEW. Because it you vote for representatives of the oligarchic-few, they will continue to destroy the poor and middle classes.
Need any evidence for that???
Actually, we don't know that any of your accusations are true.
And what is the "CHANGE" about which McCain keeps talking?
The don't-vote-for-obama trolls keep marching on.
q
quickstepper,
You write:
"The don't-vote-for-obama trolls keep marching on."
Trolls, eh? ... May I ask you a few questions, quickstepper?
-- Is it "troll-like" to point out that Barack Obama, like John McCain, wants to "increase* the Pentagon's budget? ... Or is that simply pointing out a fact?
-- Is it "troll-like" to point out that Barack Obama, like John McCain, is against single-payer healthcare; and that single-payer healthcare is the norm in every advanced industrial country in the world, except the United States? ... Or is that simply pointing out a fact?
- Is it "troll-like" to point out that Barack Obama has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, currently totaling over $500 billion. ... Or is that simply pointing out a fact?
- Is it "troll-like" to point out that "peace candidate" Barack Obama went out of his way to campaign for Joe Lieberman, in Lieberman's 2006 primary fight against antiwar candidate Ned Lamont? ... Or is that simply pointing out a fact?
-- Is it "troll-like" to point out that "peace candidate" Barack Obama voted to confirm Condeleeeza Rice, as well as a host of other Bush nominees, executive as well as judicial? ... Or is that simply pointing out a fact?
-- Is it "troll-like" to point out that Barack Obama voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act? ... Or is that simply pointing out a fact?
-- Is it "troll-like" to point out that Barack Obama voted for the F.I.S.A. bill, after vowing not to? ... Or is that simply pointing out a fact?
-- Is it "troll-lie" to point out that in a June 29, 2008 "Times of London" article Richard Danzig quotes Obama's top military adviser as saying: "My personal position is (Robert) Gates (Bush's Secretary of Defense) is a very good secretary of defense and would be an even better one in an Obama administration." ... Or is that simply pointing out a fact, i.e., pointing out what Barack Obama's top military adviser said?
-- Is it "troll-like" to point out that Barack Obama, a "peace candidate” during the primaries, now -- now that he's the nominee -- has an “all-new” position on Iraq, i.e., we will stay in Iraq until we’re good and ready to leave. re. Obama's July 2, 2008, speech in Colorado Springs, in which he said:
"I have always said I would listen to the commanders on the ground. I have always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability.”
Is that "troll-like," or is that simply pointing out what Obama said?
-- Is it "troll-like" to point out that in a July 14th op-ed piece in the New York Times, Barack Obama, the former "peace candidate" stated:
"The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as president, I won’t. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps and to crack down on cross-border insurgents.
"We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights."
Is that "troll-like," or is that simply pointing out what Obama said?
-- Is it "troll-like" to point out that last year, writing in "Foreign Affairs" magazine, former "peace candidate" Barack Obama wrote:
"We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests. But we must also become better prepared to put boots on the ground in order to take on foes that fight asymmetrical and highly adaptive campaigns on a global scale.”
Is that "troll-like," or is that simply pointing out a fact, i.e., pointing out what Obama said?
-- Is it troll-like to point out that Barack Obama supports two wars now in progress (Iraq and Afghanistan) and has shown a clear-cut willingness to engage in two more wars (Iran and Pakistan) -- with the use of all weapons, including nuclear weapons, "not off the table."
Is that "troll-like," or is that simply pointing out a fact?
-- In short, is it "troll-like" to point out that Barack Obama is one of two corporatist candidates who, if elected, will represent the narrow interests of the oligarchic-few, as opposed to the broad, grassroots interests of the democratic-many? ... Or is that simply pointing out an all-too-obvious fact?
The only thing people who criticize supporters of a third party can do is to either call third-party supporters names, or else insist that third-party supporters abandon their principles, abandon their values, and vote for the lesser-of-the-two-evils, Barack Obama.
Didn't Naomi Klein have an article here a few days ago about how we should not just be cheerleading Obama but trying to influence him as well?
Obama doesn't want the very dirty Alberta Tar Sands Oil and doesn't want to rely on Middle East Oil - but he also doesn't want to run out of oil - which means more local drilling. He is looking at his options and talking to "experts." Don't we have our own experts as well?
As long as Obama is against drilling in the Wild Life Reserve which straddles Alaska and the Yukon, he's better than the other guy.
To all of your idiotic questions, the answer is 'yes' (Gee, too bad that you put all of that effort into cataloguing so many points that can be so easily dismissed).
It IS troll-like to discuss all of these points ONLY with regard to Obama (as your original post does) and very little mention of McCain, whose troglodyte platform apparently doesn't bother you.
You can claim to be a third-party supporter (which party I'm not sure) but you are pushing the same agenda as McCain supporters: don't vote for Obama. A genuine third-party advocate would have attacked both McCain and Obama equally.
Had your criticism been more evenly handed then I would not have responded to your original post.
q
It is NOT troll-like to criticize a candidate on legitimate political points and not include criticisms of other candidates, especially here in this left-leaning forum with few if any McCain supporters.
Your instant dismissal of everyone who criticizes Obama is irrational.
quickstepper,
In your last post, you wrote:
"You can claim to be a third-party supporter (which party I'm not sure) but you are pushing the same agenda as McCain supporters: don't vote for Obama. A genuine third-party advocate would have attacked both McCain and Obama equally." (Words in parenthesis yours.)
From reading my post, it should be clear that I'm to the left of Barack Obama.
Also, my post was not, as you put it, "attacking" John McCain. It was responding to Obama supporters who either:
-- call third party supporters names, and/or
-- offer their "vote-for-the-lesser-of-the-two-evils" argument, and nothing more.
Ironically, those two things are precisely what you did in your post! You haven't responded to even *one* of the facts I mentioned regarding Barack Obama.
You write:
" ... you are pushing the same agenda as McCain supporters: don't vote for Obama."
This implies that anyone to the left of Barack Obama *owes* Barack Obama his or her vote -- regardless of how much they disagree with Obama's agenda. But this is exactly what the issue is -- and it's exactly what you're unwilling to discuss.
You believe that someone such as myself, someone who is to the left of Barack Obama, should not vote for the person who best represents their interests and ideology (e.g., Nader or McKinney or a socialist) but should, instead, vote for the Democratic nominee; this time 'round, Barack Obama.
So that if I'm *against* war, I should vote *for* a war candidate. ... Someone who supporta two wars in progress (Iraq and Afghansitan), and is willing to engage in two *additional* wars (Iran and Pakistan). ... Someone who went out of his way to campaign for Joe Lieberman, in Lieberman's 2006 primary fight against antiwar candidate Ned Lamont. ... Someone who wants to increase the Pentagon budget. ... Someone who takes no weaposn "off the table" -- including nuclear weapons.
And if I'm *against* the FISA bill, I should vote *for* someone who voted in favor of the FISA bill -- after vowing not to.
And if I *oppose* the Patriot Act, I should vote for someone who *supports* the Patriot Act.
And down the line, re. the *facts* I outlined regarding Obama and the Democratic party's oligarchic agenda.
In other words, as long as tbe Democratic Party is somewhat to the left of the Republican Party, I *owe* my vote to the Democratic Party.
This is a decidedly *undemocratic,* unrepresentative notion of what voting should be.
So that if I vote for Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney or a socialist candidate, I'm actually NOT voting for them. Instead, I'm really doing John McCain's work -- as you put it, I'm "pushing the same agenda as McCain supporters: don't vote for Obama."
But that's not McCain's "agenda," and you know it. McCain's agenda is totally different from Ralph Nader's agenda or Cynthia McKinney's agenda or a socialist's agenda.
Is it possible that voting for a candidate whose agenda is significantly different from your own is, democratically speaking, NOT a good idea?
Is it possible that voting for the lesser of the two evils is what's caused the political consensus in the United States to have shifted dramatically to the right over the past 40 years?
In short, is it possible to have a discussion with you *without* either name-calling or dragging out the same old vote-for-the-lesser-of-the-two-evils argument?
All of your arguments against Obama only look at one side of the question. There are other responses besides the total opposite of said question. One reason the Clinton health plan didn't pass was that health insurance companies quashed it. (Note I said ONE reason) Thus, Obama, realizing that the only way to get healthcare to the maximum amount of citizens, is to utilize the health insurance companies. In the 90s no one wanted Single Payer Healthcare - they wanted choice. So, Obama utilizing his abilities to compromise (not a bad thing)is proposing a mixture of the best of both. Obama certainly is not perfect, but he is not nearly as bad as you protray him. We need to get something done, and he is the only person willing to try.
"So what the hell is this "CHANGE" Obama and the Democrats are talking about?!"
Its the same change/reform that we hear from McCain/Palin.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
As I understand Obama, we are the change he is talking about. But I think this gets really confusing, because if he isn't doing his part to be that change, though he can expect us to act without him because in reality we can, it kinda ends up in bizarro-land and leaves one feeling betrayed, as so many ex-supporters feel.
But Obama truly is in a constrained position, I do see this, while we are free to push for his supposed agenda which he abandoned to try and win. The kind of mental contortions he must go through to sleep at night are not in my mind to be envied.
I wonder what would have happened if he had stayed true to his pledge of change, and true to creating change we could believe in.
I'm just not sure his betrayal of a movement that he latched on to that carried him with millions of faithful Americans should be abandoned because of him. It's almost like you would have to ignore that he was the ticket alone, and remember the way it started was that you were the ticket together.. but let me not ramble on...I know I probably make little sense to most of you CD bloggers.
Besides most Obama believers are staying strong in their belief, belief of him, belief of self, who knows.
c'est pas vraiement le meme chose...
McCain and Palin are from the GOP, the conservative party who really want the country to go in reverse. They want change about as much as Palin wants an abortion.
The progressives actually mean it when they say they want change. It may not be possible to move the corporate-run congress once a progressive pres is in Wash DC, but at least the country isn't moving backwards.
Remember, Bush ran on the same lies that he would unite America and clean house in Washington, "I aint another Wachington insider like my opponent (Al Gore)."
Well I think there are some very obvious and vast differences between the two that may or may not count for an important difference that one may count to vote on.
However one thing I do know about this theory that there is no difference between McCain/Obama, which I think is undoubtedly grounded in very good conclusive thinking, it does undermine Obama's chance of winning.
So going with the theory there are 'trolls' running amok in the liberal posting blogs, I do believe they would encourage this kind of thinking and potentially hype it all out of proportion, not that I think wsws is a troll, nor am I yet convinced that trolls are really a problem.
I think that the biggest vast difference between the two candidates that should be given due consideration is who they represent, and what ideals they represent.
There is a considerable difference between the liberal and conservative positions, even if the ultimate representatives poorly resemble that fact as they dumb themselves down to get that middle voter, that undecided voter, etc.
I mean who here would claim that there is no difference between themselves, and the other side? No, no all I hear is that this is the side of truth and hope and the other side the side of lies and despair. So in a bizarre way the majority of us who really do represent change can vote in the person that through our vote is supposed to represent us. What that person does with this fact is not our fault, don't you think?
wsws, You may be right that Obama isn't the best choice for the poor and middle class, but he's a helluvalot better than McCain/Palin. I for one am never going to throw my vote to a third party until we get a system of voting such as Instant-Run-off. I personally blame Nader for Bush; and thank Perot for keeping Bush Sr. out of a 2nd term. I would have voted for Nader in 2000 if it didn't risk the MUCH larger evil that indeed we have today.
It will be interesting to see how Pelosi fares against Dana Walsh with Ciny Sheehan shaking things up. If there was IRV for this race then maybe Sheehan would actually have a chance.
(Big Al Gore sigh) ah, wsws.org, back at the old pop stand, still mysteriously full of more hate-filled bile for Obama than McCain.
To answer your questions:
wsws.org site [September 16th, 2008 2:33 pm]:Here are two questions for you ...
1.) True or False: Corporate America has given Barack Obama millions of dollars (more money than they've given John McCain!), because Corporate America wants Barack Obama and the Democratic Party to represent the interests of the "democratic-many."
First off, 'corporate America,' in the form of individual employees of corporations and their families, have given Obama's campaign about $4 million out of the roughly $300 million that has been contributed to his campaign which, according to the Open Secrets website, comes entirely from individuals, not corporations. McCain's money comes from both direct contributions from corporations and contributions to the RNC which are then funneled to McCain. That amount is between $100 and $200 million in corporate contributions, well over the amount Obama has collected from those sources. So that would be 'false.'
2.) True or False: Corporate America has given Barack Obama millions of dollars (more money than they've given John McCain!), because Corporate America wants Barack Obama and the Democratic Party to represent the interests of the "oligarchic-few."
It's SOP for corporations to give money to any candidate who has a chance to win, trying to insure they have access. So, of course, they have given money to Obama through surrogates. Now you have to prove that Obama, as president, will do their bidding. (We already know from McCain's past history -- Keating Five, Vicky Iseman, et al -- that he will.) Of course, you can't prove what a President Obama will do. What you assert is complete speculation. As a state senator in Illinois and as a US senator, Obama drafted and passed ethics and transparency legislation that the corporate lobbyists were against. If he was in their back pocket, how did that happen? This is as false and misleading as the first question.
Two questions for you:
1.) Since either McCain or Obama is going to be elected president in 2008, which one do you think will be more progressive, even if only marginally?
2.) Do you really believe that Obama is the warmonger that McCain has proven himself? (Look at his recent belligerent comments about Russia and dedication to remaining in the Middle East and attacking Iran.) Obama was against the Iraq War from the start and doesn't have the taste for blood of the Republicans. Which candidate do you think is most likely to resort to nuclear weapons and spark WWIII?
Thank you for clearing that one up so well.
Quoting from an article by Bill Van Auken, entitled: "Obama’s Response to Financial Meltdown: Deception and Subservience to Wall Street" --
"The Obama campaign has raised close to $10 million from the Wall Street investment houses, nearly 50 percent more than the amount they have given to Republican McCain. Three senior executives at the now bankrupt Lehman Brothers raised more than $1.5 million for the Democrat.
"The Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign contributions, listed Goldman Sachs as the top source of campaign funds for the Obama campaign. The watchdog group added that Wall Street’s stake in the Democratic candidate is probably even larger. “Since his campaign has ignored repeated requests... to disclose his bundlers’ employers and occupations,” it pointed out, “these figures are probably undercounts.”
"In addition to Wall Street, the Obama campaign has raised some $13.4 million from the finance, insurance and real estate sector and $2 million from the commercial banks, again outstripping McCain.
"Given this financial banking, Obama’s posturing as a champion “Main Street” and the scourge of “special interests” is just as absurd as McCain’s vow to fight “greed” on Wall Street.
"Equally dishonest is the Democratic candidate’s repeated assertion that the present crisis is the outcome of policies pursued simply over the past eight years. Conveniently ignored is the fact that the frontal assault on the working class that lay the foundations for the present economic setup in America was initiated under the Democratic Carter administration 30 years ago and that the most sweeping deregulation of the financial markets was carried out under the Democrat Clinton.
"The results of this process, which has seen the increasing deindustrialization of the US economy, the ever growing weight of financial parasitism and the unprecedented widening of social inequality, will not be cured by the modest increase in regulation being proposed by some Democrats.
"Obama has given his backing to the bailouts carried out to date, while remaining silent on plans for a government takeover of mortgage-related investments. The Democratic candidate has said nothing about holding accountable those who profited off of this unfolding calamity, much less proposing that their profits be seized."
Click here for the entire article -- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/obam-s19.shtml
RichM September 16th, 2008 9:53 pm: "I don't see any one simple overall figure provided for each guy's "corporate" vs "individual donations." The closest is this intro page to the presidential candidates. This says that as of July 31, Obama had raised about $390 million (total) to McCain's $174 million (total). To figure out how much of this was "corporate" as opposed to individual, I clicked on Obama's picture on that page & was taken to another page giving a pie-chart breakdown for "Source of Funds." For Obama, this showed an "individual" figure of 96%; with 0% for PACs, & 4% for "other". For McCain, the corresponding figures were individual = 81%; PAC = 1%; "other" = 18%.
"So both candidates, according to this, got most of their money from "individuals." Therefore, it's patently NOT the case, as you implied, that virtually all of McCain's donations are "corporate."
Excuse me, I should have written McCain accepts more PAC and "other" money than Obama.
However, since the July 31st date of that Open Secrets piece, and the Aug. 15th Bloomberg article, things have changed for McCain, as noted in this Wall Street Journal article of Sept. 8th:
Once Spurned, McCain Finds Corporate Support
By Brody Mullins
The Wall Street Journal
September 8, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB122083596543108777.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_topbox
"MINNEAPOLIS -- Corporate executives, who once discounted John McCain's campaign, have been key to the Republican presidential nominee's rebound on the fund-raising circuit, a new analysis of campaign donations shows.
"Since the 2008 presidential campaign began, Democratic candidate Barack Obama has raised more than double Sen. McCain's haul and beaten the Arizona Republican in just about every fund-raising category.
"But in the months after the two started to square off as their parties' likely nominees, Sen. Obama maintained only a slight financial edge overall, while Sen. McCain claimed the advantage among top industry donors.
"Sen. McCain's fund-raising advantage among corporate America is a stark reversal from earlier this year, when he struggled to secure donations from executives. In the Republican primary, many executives backed Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, partly because he is a former businessman and partly because Sen. McCain has long battled with industry as a member of the Senate.
"According to an analysis of fund-raising data released Thursday by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Sen. McCain raised more money in June and July from larger donors in 15 of the top-donating 25 industries than did Sen. Obama.
"The Republican nominee drew more donations from executives at oil and gas, real-estate, securities and investment and insurance companies, the data showed. He raised $22.3 million from the top 25 industries in the two-month period, compared with Sen. Obama's $19.9 million."
So, McCain is now, as I said, raising more money than Obama from corporate sources.
But there's also a problem with the methodology used by Open Secrets to equate the contributions by employees and their families with a corporate contribution to a candidate, and here are two examples to illustrate what I mean:
One: A friend of mine is a nurse who works for a for-profit medical center. She and her nursing friends who work at the same place have all donated money to Obama, yet the head of the facility is supporting McCain. Are we to then surmise that Obama will do favors if elected for this for-profit medical company?
Two: In the last presidential election, I met some middle management people from McDonald's Corp. They were donating money to John Kerry, yet the top executives of the corporation were supporting Bush. The Kerry campaign was unaware that these individuals donating money also worked for McDonald's, but the Bush campaign was well aware that the top executives were for Bush. Open Secrets does not break down their information in this regard, so it is only a very rough guide rather than a precise measurement as to whom a candidate might be beholden if elected.
What we do know is that Obama has drafted and passed, both as a state senator and US senator, government transparency and ethics legislation that were not popular with lobbyists and their corporate employers; McCain has a history, from the Keating Five to deregulation to Vicky Iseman, of doing favors for lobbyists, even as he touts himself as a reformer. Most of his 'reform,' as it turns out, is mainly empty talk to burnish his public image.
RichM September 16th, 2008 10:26 pm
RSJ - one other point. You write at the bottom of your post, "...Obama was against the Iraq War from the start .... Which candidate do you think is most likely to resort to nuclear weapons and spark WWIII?"
- First of all, let's dispense with this fairy tale about Obama being "against the Iraq War from the start." You are referring to the one speech he gave in 2002 while still an Illinois State Senator. His position was NEVER opposition to the Iraq invasion on moral, legal, or principled grounds. He never said it would constitute the crime of aggression, & would violate international law, including the Nuremberg Principles. Rather, he said something like "I'm not against all wars -- I'm against dumb wars." His concern was not for the victims of the war, about whom he's never said a single word. His concern was that the war might prove costly & unwise for the INVADER. His position was like that of a member of a bank-robbing gang, who opposes robbing a particular bank, not because he has any qualms against bank-robbing in general, but because he thinks that particular bank has characteristics which might make it a messy job, & not ultimately worth the trouble.
That's not true, Rich M. I heard that Oct. 2002 speech when it happened which, BTW, took some political courage to make since Bush and his wars were still popular at the time and most Illinois Democrats were running for cover. That speech was made at a Peace Rally in downtown Chicago, and Obama was criticized for it by the local media at the time, but he didn't change his stand. In that speech, and in others later, he opposed the war on many grounds, including the morality of invading a country that had done us no harm. In 2004, supporting Kerry, who had voted for the Iraq war, he did say he might have done the same thing Kerry had done, had he been a senator, but he was just trying to help his friend Kerry get elected. (Did I mention he's a politician?) Your analogy to bank robbing is ludicrous -- he is running to be the leader of a country which he would take an oath to defend, militarily, if necessary. It's true, Obama's not a pacifist, but he is less likely to entangle us in dumb wars than McCain. (Read below.)
RichM September 16th, 2008 10:26 pm
"Secondly, you ask which candidate is mostly likely to resort to nukes & spark WWIII. I realize you regard this as a question which can only be answered in one way. But let's recall that at least twice in the last century, Democrats ran as fake "peace candidates", were elected on that basis, & promptly plunged the country into war. Once was Wilson in 1916; the other LBJ in 1964. LBJ had the gall to paint Goldwater as the "unstable lunatic who'd lead us into war," then turned around & began the immense Vietnam buildup, within months of being re-elected.
I'm not defending Wilson's actions, and you failed to mention that FDR ran in 1940 as the candidate who would keep us out of foreign wars. In fact, even after the Nazi provocation of sinking the USS Reuben James and killing 100 US sailors, FDR still refused to declare war on Germany. But Pearl Harbor changed all that.
LBJ was a different story: We were already in a war in Vietnam in 1964 when he ran against Goldwater, so he could hardly paint him him as someone 'who'd lead us into war' -- that's a grossly inaccurate mischaracterization. Goldwater had said he would use nuclear weapons in Vietnam, that's why the Democrats called him a 'lunatic,' just as you'd call anyone today who advocated using nukes to win in Afghanistan a lunatic.
Due to the likelihood that McCain will start more 'Iraqs,' as well as leave our troops there for an indeterminate time, Werther at Antiwar.com has pegged McCain as "The Most Dangerous Man in America":
"McCain's love of war and diplomatic brinkmanship is nothing if not sincere. Perhaps it is the only sincere thing about the man." [...]
"All ... [of his] flip-flops illustrate McCain's near-total lack of sincerity: he doesn't really care about the issues at all. In practice he changes positions so easily because the positions themselves are throwaways. He is required to have them for political purposes, but they mostly bore and annoy him.
"There is only one thing he cares about, and that is building an altar to Mars. War is the one fixed star in the McCain universe. You will find no flip-flopping or prevaricating there."
-- Werther, "The Most Dangerous Man in America," Antiwar.com, Aug. 20, 2008.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/werther.php?articleid=13325
RichM September 16th, 2008 10:26 pm
Obama basically agreed with McCain about the Russian/Georgian conflict. His rhetoric is more restrained, but since he too favors admitting Georgia to NATO, & a general strategy of trying to undermine Russian influence, he is playing the same game as McCain. If there's a confrontation with Russia, it will come from the nature of the game that's being played -- not from the personality characteristics of the president.
I wouldn't say that he 'basically agreed' with McCain but, regardless of your interpretation, Obama is less likely than the feckless and intemperate McCain to start a conflict with Russia. McCain is, to put it simply, a war lover; Obama is not.
I'll respond to your other post soon -- I'm just too busy today.
Just to quickly respond to your points, RichM [September 20th, 2008 11:54 pm]:
1.) Wilkie's proposals in the 1940 campaign included some good ideas and he was, as you say, as against involvement in European wars as FDR. His 'One World' book of 1943 was a progressive treatise for the time and advocated notions now ridiculed by most Republicans:
"A true world outlook is incompatible with a foreign imperialism, no matter how high-minded the governing country. It is equally incompatible with the kind of imperialism which can develop inside any nation. Freedom is an indivisible word. If we want to enjoy it, and fight for it, we must be prepared to extend it to everyone, whether they are rich or poor, whether they agree with us or not, no matter what their race or the color of their skin. We cannot, with good conscience, expect the British to set up an orderly schedule for the liberation of India before we have decided for ourselves to make all who live in America free." [...]
"Our very proclamations of what we are fighting for have rendered our own inequities self-evident. When we talk of freedom and opportunity for all nations, the mocking paradoxes in our own society become so clear they can no longer be ignored. If we want to talk about freedom, we must mean freedom for others as well as ourselves, and we must mean freedom for everyone inside our frontiers as well as outside."
-- Wendell Wilkie, "One World."
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAwillkie.htm
2.) Well, I interpret such lines as these in Obama's October 2002 speech as having a moral dimension:
"What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression." [...]
"Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance, corruption and greed, poverty and despair."
And, of course, he showed rare prescience for a politician in 2002 with this accurate analysis:
"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda."
So it has come to pass. I don't recall any other major party pol saying anything like that in 2002.
I have to disagree that he never said "anything this spirited or oppositional again." Since I live in Illinois, and have met Obama, I have a slight advantage on you. During his 2004 primary campaign for the US senate seat, for example, he was attacked for his stand on the Iraq occupation and defended it repeatedly.
As far as voting for war funding, that was also funding to equip the troops that Bush was holding hostage. He also proposed a funding bill in January 2007 to link money for the Iraq occupation to a troop withdrawal plan. He couldn't get the votes to pass it.
My estimation in meeting and talking to Obama on a couple of occasions, once before he ran for office, is that he's basically a decent, intelligent guy with a solid grasp of the issues, with this caveat: He is a politician. He's not the Dick Nixon type who would sell his own grandmother for power, but he will occasionally soften his positions or sometimes vote in a way that he sees as politically advantageous. He is pragmatic to this extent: He believes you have to get elected to effect change. That said, his presidency will alter the direction of this country for the better and, if we keep pressure on him, do some good progressive things as well, just as FDR did in response to pressure from the public. McCain, like Bush, does not understand the issues, his thinking is clouded by outmoded ideology repeatedly proven wrong, and he is unlikely to respond to a crisis until it's too late. (Look at the last week and his ever-changing and self-serving positions on the economy -- it's plain, after 26 years in Congress, he really doesn't know much about the economy except some Reagan-era 'trickle-down' ideology. This is not the kind of president who is going to take the country in a new direction, whatever his campaign rhetoric.)
3.) Barry Goldwater, compared to this current crop of Republicans, was no warmonger, but he did have an unfortunate tendency to hand ammunition to LBJ, such as musing aloud about using nukes to settle the Vietnam War. I didn't like LBJ, except for his civil rights and social programs, and opposed the Vietnam War as far back as the mid-60s. Goldwater, as has been revealed by his actions post-1964, was a much more honest and principled man than Johnson -- honest enough to oppose his own party on women's rights, gay rights and the intrusion of religion into government and politics. Ironically, these days he'd be tagged a 'liberal' by the media and Sarah Palin would make snarky little jokes about him. Goldwater was everything McCain would like to be, but isn't and never will be.
RSJ,
Your first question to me is:
"Since either McCain or Obama is going to be elected president in 2008, which one do you think will be more progressive, even if only marginally?"
Simply because one of the two major party candidates is "marginally to the left" of the other, that doesn't make them a progressive.
For example, let’s say that in 2004 Democrat Joe Lieberman ran for president against Republican George Bush. One is, as you put it, “marginally to the left” of the other. But does that therefore make either of them a progressive? Of course not.
Over the past 40 years, the political consensus in the United States has moved dramatically to the right. So much so that Richard Nixon signed more progressive legislation in the 1970s than Bill Clinton did in the 1990s. … But does that make Richard Nixon a progressive? … Of course not.
Being a progressive is being a progressive. It doesn’t depend on where the political consensus is at any given moment. … Given your logic, as compared to Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini would be a progressive. … Was he?
Because the political consensus has moved dramatically to the right, one has to go to the far-left of the Democratic Party to find a politician who is in any way progressive.
For example, Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich, Maxine Waters.
And we all know what chance they have of being nominated for president by the Democratic Party!
Moreover, one has to question just how progressive the politicians I mentioned are, in that they insist on remaining with a party, the Democratic Party, that has in the past 7 years done everything in their power to *enable* Bush and the Republicans to destroy nations, murder innocent people and trash the US Constitution.
Is that what a true progressive allows to happen? … Is the Democratic Party the kind of party a true progressive would want to represent them?
What do you think would happen if the Democratic politicians I mentioned above, plus several others on the Democratic Party-left (e.g., Mario Cuomo, Barbara Lee, Bernie Sanders, Ted Kennedy, when he was well) -- what do you think would happen if they bolted from the Democratic Party and, in league with Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney, established a progressive third party? … Think they’d get a few votes?
If the politicians I just mentioned, and others on the Democratic Party-left, put “principles over politics,* why haven't they broken with the Democratic Party? … Do they, instead, prefer their political "property," i.e., their elected office, to what they know they should do -- break with the Democratic Party?
How can they, in good conscience, remain with a party that has been criminally complicit with the Bush Administration?
The following article outlines Barack Obama's *record,* as opposed to his *rhetoric.* Read it, then tell me if you still think Barack Obama is a progressive. The article is entitled, "The Obama Craze, Count Me Out" And it’s located here -- http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=5413
The second question you asked me to respond to is:
"Do you really believe that Obama is the warmonger that McCain has proven himself? (Look at his recent belligerent comments about Russia and dedication to remaining in the Middle East and attacking Iran.) Obama was against the Iraq War from the start and doesn't have the taste for blood of the Republicans. Which candidate do you think is most likely to resort to nuclear weapons and spark WWIII?"
(Words in parenthesis yours.)
This leads me to believe that you haven't read my posts in this thread. I'll restate what I previously stated in this thread, and add to it.
During the primaries, Barack Obama ran as a "peace candidate." However, literally *hours* after he captured the nomination from Hillary Clinton, he lurched to the right.
Note: This is in keeping with a standard Democratic strategy -- run-left during the primaries, then if you win the nomination, quickly move to the right.
In doing this (moving to the right after the nomination is locked up) the Democratic nominee, be it Obama in 2008, Kerry in 2004, or Al Gore in 2000, is, in effect, saying to anyone to the left of them -- to *millions* of voters -- “Screw you! T.I.N.A. There Is No Alternative -- There Is No Alternative to the Democratic/Republican duopoly. You have no choice. You either vote Democratic or else you vote Republican
And this is the exactly what a progressive third party movement is all about. You *do* have a choice!
Because as long as people on the left "buy into" TINA -- the idea that there is no alternative to the Republican/Democratic duopoly -- the political consensus will inevitably continue to move to the right.
Corporatist candidates will continue to be elected, and with them corporate/oligarchic power will continue to dominate the everyday lives, the "felt-lives," of millions of people, here in the US and around the world.
In short, things will only get worse.
Look around, RJS, have things gotten worse in the past 40 years for the average citizen, the average wage earner – the planet itself?
Moreover, aren’t people such as yourself, who say “TINA” – There Is No Alternative to the Republican/Democratic duopoly – aren’t *they* responsible for the US political establishment’s dramatic lurch to the right? … And isn’t that dramatic lurch to the right the basic reason why things have gotten worse for the average citizen?
(Continued)
16 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA
1.) Barack Obama ran as a peace candidate ... during the primaries. ... He *now* says that he will defer to the judgment of the commanders in the field.
On July 2, 2008, in a speech in Colorado Springs, Obama stated:
"I have always said I would listen to the commanders on the ground. I have always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability.”
In other words: I may withdraw troops in 16 months; but, if the commanders in the field say no, then we stay. ... Meaning: Obama's current position on Iraq is essentially the same as that John McCain and George Bush.
2.) Several months ago, Barack Obama, along with the rest of the Senate, gave George Bush the green light to invade Iran. (The Senate to Bush: “If you invade Iran, we won't object.”)
3.) Obama now wants to escalate the war in Afghanistan. In a July 14th "New York Times" op-ed piece, Obama proposed sending 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan.
Interestingly enough, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, also feel that there are an insufficient number of troops in Afghanistan. And guess how many additional troops they recommend be deployed in Afghanistan -- the exact same number as Barack Obama, 10,000.
Note: What did George Bush do *the day after* Obama's aforementioned op-ed piece? In a White House press conference, Bush indicated that the US and its NATO allies were already initiating a “surge” in Afghanistan.
4.) Afghanistan is the 20th country the United States has bombed since the end of World War II. ... *Before* Bush started bombing Afghanistan, one out of every 7 Afghans were either starving or in imminent danger of starving. I assume the situation is now much worse. ... This is the country to which Barack Obama, the “peace candidate,” wants to send more troops, more military contractors, more firepower, more murder.
5.) Obama has threatened to invade Pakistan. Quoting Obama from the above-cited "New York Times" op-ed piece:
"The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as president, I won’t. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps and to crack down on cross-border insurgents.
"We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights."
6.) In the same July 2, 2008 speech in Colorado Springs cited above, Obama praised the US military and vowed to increase its ranks. Obama has called for an overall increase of American ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines, and "investing in the capabilities we need to defeat conventional foes and meet the unconventional challenges of our time."
Last year, writing in "Foreign Affairs" magazine, Barack Obama wrote:
"We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests. But we must also become better prepared to put boots on the ground in order to take on foes that fight asymmetrical and highly adaptive campaigns on a global scale.”
In short, Obama supports two wars now in progress (Iraq and Afghanistan) and has shown a clear-cut willingness to engage in two more wars (Iran and Pakistan). ... Does this sound to you like a critic of the military-industrial complex, an opponent of US imperial ambitions?
7.) Obama has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $500 billion.
8.) The Pentagon budget is over $500 billion dollars a year. Both Obama and McCain want to *increase* that budget.
9.) The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are currently costing the US taxpayer
15 billion dollars per month. See http://www.costofwar.com/ Note: The vast majority of the 15 billion dollars per month is going into the hands of those who profit from America's military-industrial complex.
10.) Over 1 million Iraqis have died as a result of Gulf War II. See the following http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/31/6768/
11.) Obama voted to confirm Condeleeeza Rice, as well as a host of other Bush nominees.
12.) In 2006, Obama went out of his way to campaign for Joe Lieberman, in Lieberman’s primary fight against antiwar, *progressive* candidate Ned Lamont.
13.) In a June 29, 2008 "Times of London" article Richard Danzig quotes Obama's top military adviser as saying: "My personal position is (that Robert) Gates (Bush's Secretary of Defense) is a very good secretary of defense and would be an even better one in an Obama administration."
14.) Obama voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act.
15.) Obama voted for the F.I.S.A. bill – after vowing not to.
16.) Many right-wing supporters are *delighted* with Obama’s move to the right. So delighted was the "Wall Street Journal" -- whose editorial board generally reflects not just the right-wing but the right-wing within the Bush administration -- so delighted was the "Wall Street Journal" regarding Obama's recent lurch to the right, especially as regards Iraq, that on July 2, 2008, they published an editorial entitled "Bush's Third Term." In it, they gloatingly stated: "“Maybe he (Obama) is worried that someone will notice that he’s the candidate running for it (Bush's third term).”
Sounds to me like Obama wants to be a "wartime president." Would you agree, RSJ?
(Continued)
The Democratic Party serves a crucial function for the ruling class, the economic 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 committed to these movements is "T.I.N.A." -- "There Is No Alternative" -- that is to say, 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, and 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 voted Democratic specifically to have the Democrats end the war in Iraq.
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.
(Now all we have to do is find a commander in Iraq who's a dove.)
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 American public, if given a chance, will vote for peace every time. See the following site, and tell me how you would like to see your government spend all these billions of dollars -- on war, or on health, education and welfare -- http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
(Continued)
Finally, RSJ, please read the following article by Donna Volatile, entitled “The Obama Construct” –
http://www.counterpunch.org/volatile08282008.html
Quoting from Ms. Volatile's article:
"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)
Wsws.org, or whatever your name is, you are an irrational and unreasonable anti-Obama fanatic who demonstrates an incredible naiveté regarding national politics in the US. Obama is not, nor have I ever said he was, the perfect progressive politician; he's just better than McCain. (Yes, and on certain domestic social issues, even Lieberman, as much as it pains me to say it, would be better than McCain.)
Obama is a politician: he has done things I disagree with, such as the FISA vote, for political purposes, as have other Dems, but he still does not have the consistent 26-year record of voting against the people and with the plutocracy that McCain has.
You have 16 reasons not to vote for Obama, which I have neither the time nor inclination to respond to point-by-point as I have in the past at CD (as I'm sure you're aware wsws.org, since you were in some of those threads), but here are more than 48 reasons to avoid a McCain presidency:
"McCain's 27 Flip Flops so far," TPM:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/mccains-27-flip-flops-so-far-w.php
"Ten Media Myths of McCain," Media Matters Action Network:
http://mediamattersaction.org/freeride/myths/#10
"McSexist: McCain's War on Women," by Kate Sheppard:
http://www.alternet.org/story/92546/
"A Palin Theocracy" by Marjorie Cohn:
http://www.commondreams.org/print/32247
"Sarah Palin's 9 Most Disturbing Beliefs" by the AlterNet Staff:
http://www.alternet.org/story/97907/
"Weird Theology in Wasilla: A Look Inside Sarah Palin's Pentecostal Church:" by Bruce Wilson
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/9/5/0244/84583
You don't want this scary woman anywhere near the presidency. At least Obama-Biden are not religiously insane and won't take us down the road to a theocracy.
You also don't seem to understand that this is a country where, as Susan Jacoby pointed out on Bill Moyers:
"Only 23 percent of college-educated young people could find Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and Israel, four countries of ultimate importance [...] to American policy on the map, a map, by the way, that ... had the ... country's lettered on it. So in other words, it wasn't a blank map. It meant they didn't really know where the Middle East was either. So 23 percent of the college-educated and only six percent of high school graduates. Well, I would say that if only 23 percent of people with some college can find those countries on a map that is nothing to be bragging about. And that has to have something to do with why as a country -- we have such shallow political discussions."
-- Susan Jacoby, from Bill Moyers' Journal, PBS, Feb. 15, 2008.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02152008/transcript2.html
Most Americans, shaped by self-serving, dumbed-down corporate media and the marketing of slick hucksters like Frank Luntz, are not going to follow the three-thousand-word screed you posted here against Obama, nor are they going to listen to an antiwar message from a socialist, as your site claims you to be. Perhaps you'll find a way someday to reach the average voter, but that's not going to happen in the near future.
None of the third party candidates this year are being covered by the Mass Media that most Americans consume so, whatever their message, it is nothing more than preaching to a very small choir.
You believe a protest vote for a third party will show the Ruling Corporate Elite that the natives are restless? This is ludicrous -- they laugh at you contemptuously, and it won't make any difference whatsoever.
I made such a protest vote in 2000 by voting for Ralph Nader and -- guess what? -- things have gotten worse. Not only that, but St. Ralph even violated his promise to build the Green Party into a true alternative to the GOP-Dem lock on our politics. He made a couple of speeches and then dropped that idea to run as an independent in 2004, where he got even less of the vote than he did in 2000.
Ever wonder why Michael Moore, Bill Murray and other progressives who campaigned so hard for Nader in 2000 are supporting Obama instead of Ralph this year? Because the stakes are too high and we can't afford another four years of a Republican in the White House. Sometimes, you have to play the cards you're dealt.
Whether you want to face reality or not, it's either Obama or McCain this year and a vote for any third party candidate is tantamount to a vote for the regressive policies of John McCain and Sarah Palin.
You can bleat all you want about progressive politics, but I'll tell you this: If McCain packs the Supreme Court with more Alitos, you can kiss your socialist wsws.org website goodbye, along with other progressive sites. The curtain of fascism is descending on this country and Obama, while by no means perfect, may be our last chance to save it from becoming a Christopublican theocracy. (Read Margaret Atwood's novel "The Handmaid's Tale" for further illumination on what America might look like after four more years of GOP rule, particularly if the frail and cancer-prone McCain can't complete his term and Sarah Palin becomes president, a likely possibility.)
So, go ahead and vote for a third party, and repent under President McCain or, worse, if that's possible, religious fanatic President Palin.
And, BTW, let's drop that trite phrase about voting for the lesser of two evils -- no one involved in politics, even progressives, are beyond human frailty and, since I don't view a political contest between flawed human beings as a self-righteous religious crusade or the election of a saint, I'm not voting for the lesser of however many evils -- I am voting for the least imperfect of all of the imperfect candidates in an imperfect election in an imperfect country in an imperfect world full of imperfect people.
Rich M, I didn't have time this AM to respond to you; I'll get to it later today.
Hear Hear, Thank you for the thoughtful response to wsws.org. These are my sentiments exactly.
The only way that I would vote for a progressive third party is with the implementation of instant-runoff-voting. I would have voted for Nader in 2000 with such a system, but I didn't for fear of another Bush disaster. I remember hearing all off the Nader supporters (and indeed, Nader himself) claiming that both parties are the same. Welllll, I dunno, but somehow I don't think we'd be in Iraq, or out of the Kyoto Protocol with a Gore presidency.
Personally, I am in the camp of blaming Nader for Bush.
Obama may not be perfect, but if we end up with a Palin presidency.....we'll all be speaking in tongues before she's through!
RSJ,
You are afraid of John McCain, afraid of Sarah Palin, afraid that if the Republicans capture the White House again, things will get worse.
But tell me -- what have the Democrats done in the past 7 years to stop Bush and the Republicans?
What have the Democrats done in the past 7 years to *prevent* things from getting worse?
Especially now that they control both houses of Congress.
And what have Barack Obama, Joe Biden and the Democratic leadership done to aggressively point out how horrible McCain and Palin are?
Quoting from a recent article by Bill Van Auken:
“(In addition to the revelation of Palin’s ignorance and ultra-right) equally revealing has been the reaction of the Obama campaign and the Democratic Party, which have given Palin a pass on everything said in the interview except her attempt to once again identify herself with the runner-up in the Democratic primaries, Senator Hillary Clinton. An angry reaction issued over the name of Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz had more the character of a protest over brand name infringement than any substantive response to Palin’s positions. …
“The Democrats have chosen to ignore this issue entirely. Nor have they issued any response to Palin’s statements regarding war on Russia and Iran. Having embraced the “surge” in Iraq, Obama is running not as an antiwar candidate in any sense, but as the advocate of a more strategically thought-out and even more robust form of American militarism. As such, he has issued his own bellicose statements against Russia, Iran and Pakistan.
“That Palin could even be considered as the Republican Party’s vice presidential candidate is testimony not only to the extreme right-wing trajectory of this party itself, but also to the spinelessness of the Democrats and their inability and unwillingness to wage any serious attack on either the Republican Party or the ultra-right.” -- Click here for the entire article -- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/paln-s15.shtml
*You,* and millions of other Americans, are afraid of Palin and McCain. But evidently Barack Obama, Joe Biden and the Democratic Party, evidently, *aren’t* that afraid of them.
If they were, they would go after Palin and McCain tooth-and-nail. And probably win the Election in a landslide.
The cowardly, spineless way the Democrats are confronting McCain and Palin apes the cowardly and spineless way they’ve confronted Bush and Company for the past 7 years.
Do you recall that at the 2004 Democratic convention, Democratic delegates were specifically instructed NOT to criticize George Bush.
Why?
Because the Democrats didn’t want to alienate those voters “in the middle” – those voters in the middle who might go either way, Democratic or Republican.
Indeed, this is what elections between Republicans and Democrats are all about – vying for the 1% to 2% of the electorate “in the middle.”
Meanwhile, there are millions of votes to the left of the Democratic-Republican duopoly. ... Were Obama and the Democrats to speak to the needs and concerns of those millions of people, they would win the Election in a landslide!
(Continued)
wsws.org site September 18th, 2008 4:44 pm
RSJ,
"You are afraid of John McCain, afraid of Sarah Palin, afraid that if the Republicans capture the White House again, things will get worse."
You're damn straight I'm afraid. McCain's a hothead and Palin's religiously insane. The Constitution is hanging by a thread, our economy is trashed, and we're bogged down in two wars. McCain would only make that worse.
"But tell me -- what have the Democrats done in the past 7 years to stop Bush and the Republicans?"
Ohio Democrat Rep. Dennis Kucinich introduced a bill to impeach Bush a couple of months ago. It didn't pass and was referred to the Judiciary Committee for further review. It's still under review. You can read Kucinich's 36 articles of impeachment here: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/busharticles
"What have the Democrats done in the past 7 years to *prevent* things from getting worse?"
They increased the minimum wage and prevented the privatizing of Social Security, to name two.
"Especially now that they control both houses of Congress."
It's a 49-49 split in the Senate, with independent Bernie Sanders usually voting with the Dems, and independent Lieberman caucusing with the Dems but not voting with them on every occasion. They don't have the votes needed to override a presidential veto, which is why some good bills have failed to become law.
And what have Barack Obama, Joe Biden and the Democratic leadership done to aggressively point out how horrible McCain and Palin are?
I suggest you listen to his ads and speeches more closely. You might learn more about the subject you criticize so ardently by going to http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
*You,* and millions of other Americans, are afraid of Palin and McCain. But evidently Barack Obama, Joe Biden and the Democratic Party, evidently, *aren't* that afraid of them.
If they were, they would go after Palin and McCain tooth-and-nail. And probably win the Election in a landslide.
Pay attention. They have been lately. And they may yet win this in a landslide; that remains to be seen. (I've edited out your superfluous comments regarding 2004 to try and keep this short.)
So why don’t they? Why don’t they speak to the needs and concerns of millions of Americans?
The reason is because if they were to do that, they would be operating outside the confines of their oligarchic agenda.
They would be offering those millions of people a part of the pie that the economic elite don’t want to give up. And that’s something the Democratic/Republican duopoly -- the mouthpiece of the economic elite -- would never do.
The fact is, the Democratic Party would rather lose elections -- Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004 and now perhaps Obama in 2008 – the Democratic Party would rather *lose* elections (and the public be damned) than turn their back on their corporate paymasters.
Instead of speaking on behalf of the needs and concerns of millions of people -- and in doing so guaranteeing their election – Obama and the Democrats are saying to millions of people: “Screw you, you have no alternative. You either vote Democratic or you vote Republican. Those are your only choices. It doesn’t matter how far to the right the Democratic Party has moved, you have no choice: either vote Democratic or vote Republican.”
And you agree with them.
As for the specifics of your post. You begin with:
“Wsws.org, or whatever your name is …”
This is typical of virtually all of the people who are critical of a progressive third party movement. They either call people names, or else they trot out the same old “you-have-no-choice-vote-for-the-lesser-of-the-two-evils” argument.
And, yes, the Democratic Party’s criminally complicit in the Iraqi War *is* evil. Needlessly killing over a million Iraqis **is** evil. See the following -- See the following http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/31/6768/
You also write:
“You have 16 reasons not to vote for Obama, which I have neither the time nor inclination to respond to point-by-point as I have in the past at CD.”
You not only haven’t responded to the 16 reasons I offered not to vote for Barack Obama -- you haven’t responded to ANY of them!
If that’s the case, then why should anybody be convinced about anything you have to say? …Why not engage at least *some* of those 16 reasons? …
-- Perhaps you can start with the fact that Obama supports two wars in progress (Iraq and Afghanistan); and is willing to start a war with two other countries (Pakistan and Iran); with the use of nuclear weapons “not off the table.”
-- Or how about the fact that Obama’s top military adviser recently said: “"My personal position is (that Robert) Gates (Bush's Secretary of Defense) is a very good secretary of defense and would be an even better one in an Obama administration."
-- Or how about the fact that many right-wing supporters are *delighted* with Obama’s move to the right. So delighted was the "Wall Street Journal" -- whose editorial board generally reflects not just the right-wing but the right-wing within the Bush administration -- so delighted was the "Wall Street Journal" regarding Obama's recent lurch to the right, especially as regards Iraq, that on July 2, 2008, they published an editorial entitled "Bush's Third Term." In it, they gloatingly stated: "“Maybe he (Obama) is worried that someone will notice that he’s the candidate running for it (Bush's third term).”
-- Or how about the fact that in 2006, Obama went out of his way to campaign for Joe Lieberman, in Lieberman’s primary fight against antiwar, *progressive* candidate Ned Lamont.
Progressives owe their votes to such a candidate? ... Not hardly.
Instead of engaging the facts, the issues, your post is, for the most part, nothing but reactionary, insulting, cynical, fact-poor rambling.
(Continued)