Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiVice President Dick Cheney's Incredible and Deadly Lie
By Deceiving a Congressional Leader, Cheney Sent Us to War on False Pretenses and Violated the Separation of Powers - as Well as the Criminal Law
This week, I agreed to deliver a "Constitution Day" talk on a college campus. My talk was not partisan. Yet the subject matter I selected was prompted by the most incredible - not to mention the most deadly - lie Dick Cheney has yet told, which was reported earlier this week.
Last year, Washington Post reporter Barton Gellman and Jo Baker, now of the New York Times, did an extensive series for the Post on Cheney. Now, Gellman has done some more digging, and published the result in a book he released this week: Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency. The book reveals a lie told to a high-ranking fellow Republican, and the difference that lie made. In this column, I'll explain how Cheney defied the separation of powers, and go back to the founding history to show why actions like his matter so profoundly.
Cheney's Bold Face Lie To Congress
According to Gellman (and to paraphrase from the Post story on his finding), in the run-up to the war in Iraq, the White House was worried about the stance of Republican Majority Leader Richard Armey of Texas, who had deep concerns about going to war with Saddam Hussein. According to the Post, Armey met with Cheney for a highly classified, one-on-on briefing, in Room H-208, Cheney's luxurious hideaway office on the House side of the Capitol.
During this meeting, the Post reports, Cheney turned Armey around on the war issue. Cheney did so by telling the House Majority Leader that he was giving him information that the Administration could not tell the public -- namely (according to Armey), that Iraq had the "'ability to miniaturize weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear,' which had been 'substantially refined since the first Gulf War,' and would soon result in 'packages that could be moved even by ground personnel.' In addition, Cheney linked that threat to Saddam's alleged personal ties to al Qaeda, explaining that 'we now know they have the ability to develop these weapons in a very portable fashion, and they have a delivery system in their relationship with organizations such as al Qaeda.'"
The Post story continues, "Armey has asked: "Did Dick Cheney ... purposely tell me things he knew to be untrue?" His answer: "I seriously feel that may be the case...Had I known or believed then what I believe now, I would have publicly opposed [the war] resolution right to the bitter end, and I believe I might have stopped it from happening."
In short, it was this lie that sealed the nation's fate, and sent us to war in Iraq. By lying to such an influential figure in Congress, Cheney not only may have changed the course of history, but also corrupted the separation of powers with their inherent checks and balances.
Cheney's monumental dishonesty, the news of which has been buried under the current meltdown of the nation's economy, did not strike me as a topic for a Constitution Day speech. But a realistic discussion of the working of the separations of powers did seem a fitting topic, for college students need to understand the basics of our system. After we remind ourselves of those basics, Cheney's great lie can be viewed not only as a great immorality and violation of the criminal code, but also and more fundamentally as the significant breach of his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution that it is.
Our Constitutional Separation of Powers
Historians, not to mention contemporary historical documents, establish that no issue was more important to the founders of our national government than that of what its structure should be. Accordingly, in anticipation of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787, James Madison of Virginia plowed through historical accounts of governments and concluded that there are three basic forms of government: monarchy (the one), oligarchy (an elite few) and democracy (the many). Each form, however, had serious drawbacks.
As a result, Madison sought to take the best of each to create a "republic" - as had been done in varying degrees with many of the American colonies. Republics, of course, had been around a long time, for they were the forms employed by the Greeks and Romans. Thus, the republic was a form of government those who were meeting in Philadelphia well understood, in which sovereignty resides with the people who elect agents to represent them in the political decision-making process.
Madison's republic combined elements of each type of government, in a mixing of forms. It featured an executive who incorporated the strength of monarchy without the evils of a King; a Senate that embodied the wisdom of an oligarchy; and a House that balanced the self-interest of such elites with a throng of representatives who spoke for the people of the nation.
Many delegates at the founding convention were mistrustful of a pure democracy since none had worked well in the past; moreover, the country was too large and diverse to directly involve everyone. Later, Madison nicely explained the differences in Federalist No. 14: "[I]n a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy consequently will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region."
Most importantly, Madison's structure had three separate branches of the government - legislative, executive and judicial -- and each branch was empowered to check and balance the others, and thereby diffuse power.
Madison's system, however, has not worked as designed even in the best of times, not to mention when there is an all-powerful Vice President hell-bent on gaming the system.
The Reality of Separation of Powers
An article in the June 2006 Harvard Law Journal -- Daryl J. Levinson and Richard H. Pildes, "Separation of Parties, Not Powers," Harvard Law Journal (Jun. 2006) 2311 -- provides one of the better analyses out there of the real-world workings of the separation of powers, and their accompanying checks and balances. Professors Levinson and Pildes argue that Madison's vision of separation of powers has, in fact, been trumped in America by political parties. Their point is well taken, but as I see it their conclusion is far more applicable to the Republicans than the Democrats.
"The success of American democracy overwhelmed the Madisonian conception of separation of powers almost from the outset, preempting the political dynamics that were supposed to provide each branch with a 'will of its own' that would propel departmental '[a]mbition ... to counteract ambition'," Levinson and Pildes explain. This, in turn, they argue, made the underlying theory of the government - separation of powers - largely "anachronistic."
When they looked at government, however, they found that when different political parties control the different branches - creating a divided government - then the parties working through those branches still do operate as Madison had hoped. Why? By sifting through the work of noted political scientists, Levinson and Pildes have concluded that it is not on behalf of protecting the institutional powers that the checking and balancing occurs; rather, it is through the influence of party politics operating through that divided branch.
I believe, based on the record (and as someone who worked on the Hill when Democrats controlled both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue) that Levinson and Pildes have it half right.
Democrats under unified government (i.e., when Democrats control both Congress and the White House) have been remarkably institutionally-minded, and the separation of powers has remained viable. On the other hand, conservative Republicans - as I have explained in my book Broken Government (just out in paperback too) - easily place party loyalty before the responsibilities of the governmental institution in which they serve. The first six years of the Bush/Cheney Administration, for example, were a travesty in Republican denial of institutional responsibilities. In contrast, there is a long list of Democratic House and Senate Chairmen who have a on-going history of refusing to be the rubber-stamps of Democratic Presidents.
For instance, unlike in the situation where Cheney lied to former Majority Leader Armey, when both the Democratic House and Senate suspected that President Lyndon Johnson had lied to them about the incident(s) in the Gulf of Tonkin that provoked Congress to authorize the war in Viet Nam, they took action. In contrast, Republicans have not acted on Cheney's lie to Armey - and surely Washington Post reporter Barton Gellman is not the first person to learn about this lie.
Why Cheney Is Not Likely To Be Held Accountable
Those of us who follow these matters have long known - and I have written before - that it is Dick Cheney who is molding his hapless and naive president to his will, by effecting endless expansions of Presidential powers, and acting upon Cheney's total disregard of the separation of powers.
Cheney does not seem to believe the Constitution applies to "real leaders," who do whatever they believe they must do. Nor does he believe in the separation of powers. Indeed, Cheney absurdly claims he is himself part of the Legislative Branch because he is the presiding officer of the Senate - though, in practice, that position exists only to break tie votes. It has long been clear that Cheney has been corruptly bridging the constitutional separation of powers throughout the Bush/Cheney presidency.
If Armey is right, Dick Cheney has not only behaved improperly, but also criminally: In addition, when lying to Armey, Cheney clearly committed a "high crime or misdemeanor" in his blocking the Constitution's checks and balances from stopping our march into Iraq. During the debates that took place during the Constitution's ratification conventions, it was specifically stated that lying to Congress about matters of war would be an impeachable offense. Congress has also made it a crime.
Nonetheless, nothing is likely to happen to Cheney, for Congress is too busy dealing with the disastrous economy that he and Bush are leaving behind as they head for the door. No one seems inclined to hold Cheney responsible, and he appears totally unconcerned about the wrath of history. Yet in lying even to those in his own party, about reasons to go to war, he has sunk to a low level few have reached, and it is no hyperbole to call his actions treasonous to the structure and spirit of the Republic.
141 Comments so far
Show AllI HAD A GREAT LAUGH TODAY. THE DAUGHTER OF THAT P&%#K CHENEY HAS JUST HAD A BOOK PUBLISHED ABOUT OUR FOUNDING FATHERS AND THE CONSTITUTION! NOW AIN'T THAT A HOOT?
Mr. Dean beleives it is unlikely that Cheney will not be held accountable for this "mother of all lies" on Iraq because it will be buried by the economic turmoil. Maybe not, if Iraq and the meltdown are conflated.
As reported today, the cost of the bailout is reported at $700 billion, a little less than $10,000 for an American family of four.
But, we've spent, or will spend, even MORE bailing out Iraq -- $1 trillion minimum, and double that by some accounts. That's $12,000 for our American family of four, or $160,000 for an Iraqi family of four. In addition, the Iraq war has cost over 4,000 American lives and countless Iraqi lives. Despite our prodigious spending there, the infrastructure is worse than before the war, and there are 2 million refugees and 2 million internally displaced--a housing crisis from hell.
Iraq belongs back on top of the news.
All because of Mr. Cheney's little White House lie.
Little Brother,
Valiant effort, but maybe you should take the opportunity to rest up for a bit and let the "good folks" collect their wits. Let them have the floor unimpeded for several hours or a day to present this BIG PICTURE we all keep hearing about. I spent a good part of yesterday actually trolling (I guess, according to the commonly held definition) a really atrociously maddening neocon website, from which I am now supposedly banned. Then I came to this site for a breather and got sucked up engaging the Obama campaign committee, which was a bad mix on top of the earlier neocon experience. Needless to say, I feel like crap today, so retreat, rest, and go at it again later. I suspect, that rather than presenting their case for Obama, they'll still be talking about you or whoever they can target as a "troll". Give them the spotlight for a bit--after all they are the True Progressives--and this is Their Territory. A little scary...hope none of us get that loud knock on the door after being reported.
I think most of your posts are thoughtful and informative. But then I do have a bias. I would be curious to see what they can present on their own without the "trolls" to play off of. The essence, substance of Obama...you know.
You're doing well and you are a good person. Everyone forward.
Hello, Mister Chips. And thanks much.
Yeah, it useta be a real nice site we had here once!
My Radio Shack mouse has a cool scroll wheel that even glows blue!
It cost under ten bucks!
I should think it's well worth the investment to reduce one's propensity for needless angst and tripping out with debilitating paranoid conjecture.
I see that once again logic has defeated you.
LITTLE BROTHER-
What exactly do you think this place is for? What do you think this discussion room is for? Do you think it is meant for people like you to come in here and spout off over and over again that "The system is broke" or "OBAMA is evil"?
Of course you and your friends have a point when you say that the DEMS and the REPS are the same for the most part but what solution are you offering to this cunundrum ? NOTHING!
I don't believe that you are truly working with a third party on a local level, where they are strongest. I think if you did really care and you were really committed to change, then you would say so.
I don't think you are your friends are actually friends of the progressive movements. I understand you have opinions, I understand you like to write, I understand you are angry, we are all angry. Don't you think there are better forums for your vitriolic hyperbole?
You and your friends, for the most part are like people who infiltrate peaceful protests to cause violence and negatively impact the whole movement. That is why we refer to you as TROLLS. Not because it is obvious that you are actually a republican, which I believe many of you are, but because you don't care about the movement.
You also don't seem to care about real discourse. It is just attack and defend, bob and weave, who are you fighting? You are not going to make any friends here with constant and belligerent repetition of republican talking points against the DEMS and OBAMA when we don't have a choice right now.
You are obviously angry and your writing and logic are pretty sound, so what are you trying to do here by ignoring the big picture? Is this just a place for you to sound off? I think there are much better forums for that.
YOU ARE LIKE A HIGH SCHOOL KID DISRUPTING THE CLASS BECAUSE THE "SCHOOL SUCKS". OF COURSE SCHOOL SUCKS, THE TEACHER SUCKS, THE PRINCIPAL SUCKS, THE BOOKS SUCK. BUT WE HAVE A CHANCE TO GET A BETTER PRINCIPAL THIS TIME SO WHEN WE DECIDE TO SKIP CLASS AND PROTEST THE STATE OF THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM WE WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO BE HEARD AT LEAST. IT IS NOT GOING TO BE EASY AND IT WILL TAKE TIME BUT IT MAKES MORE SENSE THAN YELLING ABOUT SOME OTHER SCHOOL THAT WE CAN GO TO THAT HAS NOT EVEN BEEN BUILT YET AND HAS NO TEACHERS.
I think this excerpt from one of your posts will help prove my point that you are just here for yourself and your friends that get off on your "rat-a-tat-tat, vapid attack" but I think your talents could be served better elsewhere.
"Neither you nor your like-minded friends have seen fit to specify exactly what you think the proper approach is; I doubt if I would feel bound by it in any case. For my part, I do not feel bound to ignore or avoid the implicit challenge in umlaut's comments; thus, I presented a rebuttal. Take it or leave it. A single contained response does not constitute a "flame war", in which deranged commenters hijack a thread and go back and forth endlessly.
You're not the first person to roll your eyes at my comments and deride them as "mere" ego, cleverness, sophistry, etc. You might want to add "narcissistic" or "nihilistic", just to mix it up a little. Again, you're entitled to your judgement, and in any case I have no power to alter it; it's certainly not going to deter me from commenting as I see fit."
It's unlikely that we're going to come to a "meeting of the minds", because your perception of my comments, besides being imbued with hostility and resentment, is predicated on your idiosyncratic concept of what Common Dreams is "for".
Obviously I don't share that concept, which is entirely subjective, and since you're not the boss of me, neither you nor similarly offended and outraged commenters have the power to chase me away-- unless, of course, whoever I'm being "reported" to pulls the plug. So be it.
I take Common Dreams as I find it; I read articles of interest to me, and express my thoughts and reactions as clearly and truthfully as I can. I assume, regrettably contrary to experience, that commenters are adults who will either come to ignore others whose "themes" are repellent or distasteful, or offer substantive responses. That's it. I must have missed the memo or meeting in which all of the rules and guiding principles of what constitutes appropriate "discussion" were presented. I just wing it from comment to comment; I like it here.
I couldn't disagree more with your metaphor of CD being a "classroom" in which I show up to disrupt the class and repeatedly shout "school sucks". It's visitors like you, and florie, who are so hung up and irritated by "negativity" that you appoint yourselves Hall Monitors. If my comments get on your nerves, ignore them!
I notice that you don't accept that alternative, which I've suggested politely, if sarcastically. No, that won't do-- you want to twist my arm on the basis of YOUR personal feeling that I'm "wrong" for this site. In this regard, the fact that your classroom metaphor has me "shouting" over everyone and "ruining" the peaceful enjoyment of the learning experience is telling. A comments thread, while certainly a "discussion", is by nature linear and sequential; no one can "talk over" another by definition, although one can readily "scroll by" another. Thus, one is free to pick and choose who one reads, and to whom one responds.
And at this stage, I can't forbear again responding that YOU'RE the one who keeps breaking into CAPITAL-LETTER shouts. I appreciate that I'm just driving you and like-minded visitors NUTS, but I'm not the one spraying spit all over the screen, or quivering in indignation.
I just came from reading comments on another article in which a fairly frequent visitor wrote a reasonably funny sarcastic retort. It wasn't an attack, just a rejoinder to a previous comment. Someone frostily replied that the comment wasn't a bit funny, that it was a waste of space, and that such comments were the reason that (s)he was finding it harder and harder to read the CD comments.
I was merely a spectator, thankfully, but I couldn't help but think "Boo-hoo... don't let the X button hit you on the way out." In my view, provided one reasonably conforms to the basic guidelines, there is absolutely no justification to hassle commenters censoriously because one happens to find them off-putting, and implicitly or explicitly censure them for being a Bad CD Citizen.
Incidentally, I do comment on things other than Obama and the presidential campaign. Perhaps you don't visit those comments threads. But during the campaign season, obviously articles on that topic will abound. And I see no reason why I should forbear to abandon my criticism of the duopoly any more than those who embrace it should shut up. Others may divide comments into "constructive" vs. "destructive" criticism, and seek to purge the latter from the ranks; I don't. I'm big on freedom.
Finally, you don't seem to notice that there are often occasions when other commenters appreciate my offerings. They don't take me to task for raining on their parade, or label me a "troll" because they don't care for my style. I have no hope of shaking your peculiar belief that I show up here just to make a stink or mess with your head(s), but FWIW provoking those with attitudes and beliefs of what CD is "for", because I don't share or buy into them, is a nuisance, not a perverse delight as you imagine.
See you around.
Little Brother-
I don't expect to "come to a meeting of minds", I don't think my mind attends those kind of meetings anyway.
As for the hostility and resentment, I didn't know that capitalizing was yelling, to tell you the truth, I don't really have a "concept" of what CD is for, it just seems to me that if you truly are a friend of the progressive movement then you would at least allude to it once in awhile, and if you are not, then why are you here?
How is my view that CD is a place for people to come and discuss what is going on in the progressive movement idiosyncratic? Is it naive, perhaps but is it probably the main purpose for this site, I think so. I just thought that ALTERNET was more of a forum for people who like to write like you do, maybe here you get more attention.
Of course you have the right to be here, I don't see anywhere in my post that would give you the impression that I want to censor you, far be it, I would be the first to defend your right for free speech. I am not trying to chase you away, I am trying to find out why you and people like you are posting here and what your reasons for being here are.
My beef with you is that I don't think CD is a place for people to come and "wing it" or sling it, or fling it, or whatever analogy you want to use for BS is. I don't think you are a friend of the progressive movement, and that would be ok, but my theory is that you don't really care about what you are saying or who you are saying it too and it is also ok for me to call you out on it.
I am not the "hall monitor", I am another kid in the class saying, "fine, I hear you, the school sucks, but we are trying to figure out what to do here and you are not helping the situation." I guess in this situation you can get away with saying, "so what" but in the real world, where things are heated up, this would not fly. We would ask you what the other alternative was and if you said one more time that we should vote for the new GAY DRAMA TEACHER who didn't have a chance to be principal instead of a principal who would now maybe allow us to have taser free gym classes, we would throw you out of the room.
The issue I have with you and many of the other people on this site is that you choose to ignore the major points of someone's post in your replies. Why reply at all? What is the point of that? Most of you seem to be intelligent enough, it just seems like a game to you, and if that doesn't bother you then so be it but I think it bothers and disrupts people who are trying to connect with other people in the progressive movement.
You would be what they used to call in the old days a 'BUMMER'.
If you don't feel like you have to defend yourself that is fine, you can still stay at the party but can you just stop harassing everyone who doesn't agree with you? I know it is more sophisticated than the average kind of harassment, but it is still harassment, it is mean spirited and inconsiderate. You have already pretty much stated that you don't care what anybody thinks, which is called irony when you are replying to other people's posts.
How is me asking you, "If you are so down with the alternatives to DEMS, what are you doing besides yelling at people who see no alternative but to vote for the DEMS?" an attack?
If you answer any of my questions straightforwardly then it will be a first. You are obviously not interested in a discussion, so why come here? You think you are fooling anyone with your brand of intelligence?
I don't think you missed the memo, I just think you are missing the boat.
Nice reply Little Brother. I agree with you that CD should be open to any and all views. I think having right-wing arguments to ponder can only help the progressive cause.
I actually tried going to the right-wing site called (I think) Townhall???. I found it painful just to be there---the ads were everywhere and to read some of the comments almost made me puke.
There's intelligence here---just like in the progressive movement.
I love your school analogy----very good!
highkarate; Nice spinning back-fist.
Thanks for taking time to make these points. I and a few others have tried, but the Obama haters have numbers on their side on CD threads. Curious. Where I live Obama enjoys some support.
What location do they post from? Texas?
Signed, A Wanderlei Silva Afficiando.
CLTR-Z and FLORIE-
It is so sad, what is happening here at CD. This is supposed to be a good site where people can come and find out what is happening in the progressive movement and get an idea of how people in the movement think and feel.
Instead, I see half that half of the posts are either trolls or lefties who have some axe to grind. Really sad. I mean, this is not ALTERNET, which is really negative these days.
I just think that there are alot of people who might come here to check out how the movement is doing and will really be turned off by these people. I don't know, maybe because it is election time they are being more belligerent but it makes me angry.
It is just nice once in a while to touch base with other progressives and see that people are awakening to the possibility of real change. We are so divided and marginalized by the media that it is nice to hear from real people who are really in the struggle, even if it is just to inform their friends and family.
I don't think we should allow these people to HIJACK this place and I agree that we should put them in their place when we can.
I wish this place had an email notification system though, to let you know when someone has posted a new comment or replied to yours. Thanks for fighting the good fight though. Just know that there are alot of good people out there that are getting ready to fight back once OBAMA is elected.
Of course there is a lot of politics but once someone half way decent is in office, we can utilize the new technologies and organizations that have been spawned in the last 15-20 years to really move things forward.
OBAMA is only a figurehead but he will bring together people from a broad spectrum of PEACE AND JUSTICE movements, no matter what he does. Timing is everything. Just having a person of color in the highest office will do wonders for the morale not just of people of color but also help to heal this country.
Are we familiar with the term paradigm shift? It is possible. The internet is peaking, 2012 is around the corner and people in this country and all over the world are fed up with the way things are going.
WE MUST BE THE REVOLUTION WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE!
HK - I've enjoyed reading your posts. The reason the trolls are increasing in intensity is because the election is getting closer. It's another form of negative advertising. The shame of it is the progressive imposters are drowning out the real 3rd party supporters, who have as much right to express themselves as we have.
Hang in there.
highkarate: you are whistling into a hurricane.
The only support you will find for Obama on Common Dreams is support for seeing him water-boarded and the posters here want to do it themselves.
I will vote for him (against McCain) This I'm told makes me Stupid, which is true. Sadly, I am not educated.
I am so stupid in fact I actually think Obama would be vastly, completely preferable than World War Three McCain-and I'm going to Nevada for a weekend to knock on doors and advocate for Barack.
Then my son and my Stupid self will vote for Obama.
Oh well.....It pays to stay in school.
Your postings betray your claim to a lack of intelligence. :-)
If you want a person of color, who is truly for other people of color, then why not Cynthia McKinney. I know, she hasn't a chance, but why gather around a figurehead who will yank your chain for the New World Order just as McCain will yank your chain for the New World Order?? My God! We could have had Colin Powell at one time, and Obama strikes me as being much closer to the ilk of Colin Powell than to anyone who actually cares or sides with the interests of the people, whatever color. It may or may not be relevant, but most fortunately, I have two new African-American friends, middle-aged sisters, who have Obama and the Democratic Party pretty well scoped out. I'm hoping that we'll be "trolling" at CD together. Why does Obama campaign for those whom Rahm Emanuel and Nancy Pelosi deem the "business-friendly" Democratic candidates against Democratic anti-war candidates. And the ECONOMY--that giant elephant in the room--which Obama and the rest of the Democrats have uttered nary a peep about until just recently. You know, believe it or not, trolling can be exhilirating but also very draining. RIGHT, TROLLS!! There really are so many issues to discuss, but C'MON, TROLLS!! Nighty, Night. Let these GOOD PEOPLE have a little fireside chat in peace.
OBAMA is not a FIGUREHEAD to gather around. He is someone who will afford the movements in place to bring about change. We have been organizing since CLINTON and now is the time.
All you haters need to get your head around the fact that the time is now, in the near future, not some far away place where a third party gains control, or has a chance.
OBAMA is not as important as the people who he will appoint, and then the people they will appoint, who will be much more willing to listen to progressives than a MCCAIN/PALIN.
You seem like a troll to me, or a misguided progressive because only one of those would think that a MCCAIN/PALIN ticket would be no worse than OBAMA/BIDEN. REALLY? GET A GRIP.
You have two African American friends, well, I am from the street, I know the street, I have lived and worked in poor neighborhoods my whole life and I know what is goin down.
You and your ilk are not a friend of the poor and disenfranchised, or the progressive movement.
OBAMA is not going to save us, but we are going to save ourselves with determination and prudence and are not going to fall prey to the so called voices of doom and gloom who try and drown out the voices of reason.
I will reiterate my comment on CYNTHIA MCKINNEY FOR THE 10TH TIME! SHE IS GREAT! BUT DO YOU THINK SHE OR HER ILK ARE MORE LIKELY TO GET A PLACE AT THE TABLE WITH MCCAIN/PALIN or OBAMA/BIDEN?
JESSE JACKSON JR is on OBAMA'S campaign team, is he a sellout now? GROW UP.
SO IGNORE MY POINTS AND ONLY GO ON AND ON WITH REPUBLICAN TALKING POINTS AND HOW YOU HAVE TO VOTE FOR ANYONE BESIDE THE DEMS AND KEEP TRYING TO CONVINCE PEOPLE YOU ARE NOT TROLLING BY TROLLING SOME MORE.
PLEASE. GO BUG THE PEOPLE ON ALTERNET OR SOMETHING, THEY ENJOY THIS KIND OF STUFF.
YOU PEOPLE ARE RIDICULOUS. MAKING UNSALIENT POINT AFTER UNSALIENT POINT. SO PASSIONATE ABOUT NOTHING. SO DEDICATED TO NEGATIVITY. GET A LIFE.
Everything Cheney (&Bush) says is a lie. It's incomprehensible to me how Congress could ever believe all the obviously undocumented crap they've been uttering for the last eight years. They must put something in the water in the Capitol building.
...But please don't go to black and white extremes like they do on the knuckle dragging red wing forums, or you look like a knuckle dragger yourself.
The dems have decided it's better to give in in some ways and lose a few battles in order to win a war. It may be a bad decision. It not be the most moral act, but it is NOT the same as the the reps. It's people with good intentions, who spent most of their lives trying to help the little guys, the disenfranchised, and minorities, trying to fight their way through a corrupt system as apposed to people trying to get rich by gaming the system.
The logic of voting for them is that if they get both the congress and the white house, they won't have to pander and compromise to the 60% that call themselves conservative. There won't be vetoes, and there won't be a rep congress deciding the bills to pass.
Clinton had Gingrich and a rep congress to deal with. Bush had the reps on his side for the first 4 years, and a too slim majority dem congress his 2nd term to override his vetoes. Clinton folded a lot, but also doesn't have a huge fortune from weapons manufacture, voting machines, military and infrastructure rebuilding of countries we've demolished, or the oil industry. He made his money from writing books and giving lectures.
So that's your realistic choice.
It's not this childish nuance lacking "All the same" "Look what he said" "Look at this vote" scenario. The real world is not this ignorant black and white simplistic view.
You also have probably 2 supreme court justices that will retire in the near future and the prez will be deciding that. If for nothing else you should think about that.
You can vote ideal or conscious, but I hope you will find more satisfaction from that one day out of your whole life that you decided not to vote or vote to a party that has no chance, than in living in the world that will come in the years to follow from that decision.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it and then misapplying the wrong remedies. " Groucho Marx
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
H. L. Mencken
¨ :
I very much appreciate the Groucho and Mencken quotes, which ironically go right over your head.
Your supercilious and condescending arguments, not so much.
I won't trouble to dissect your pedestrian and utterly conventional "realpolitik" analysis, especially as you've already dismissed my own perspective as a "bumper-sticker" mentality.
This cynic's opinions, in any case, are not founded on fatuous and puerile equivalences of Obama and Cheney vis-à-vis their curricula vitae, as one of your straw-man arguments suggests. It's far deeper and more structural than that.
What could be more "childish nuance lacking" than your own primitive labeling and reductionism?
Especially when you write sentences like: "You can vote ideal or conscious, but I hope you will find more satisfaction from that one day out of your whole life that you decided not to vote or vote to a party that has no chance, than in living in the world that will come in the years to follow from that decision."
"The lack of nuance and understanding of our world and government here is depressing."
Back at you, comrade.
Were you sticking out your tongue while you wrote your post?
Not at all. Were you?*
*Assuming you're directing the question to me-- and not umlaut, as logic suggests.
The "reply" threads in the Reformed Comments are a bit ambiguous.
Both you and Umlaut and just having a duel of the EGOS. It's really not adding anything to the world at all. Please stop.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, Florie.
But I beg to differ.
I presume that anyone who comments here, myself included, expects such comments to be read and responded to, or not, as the reader sees fit.
Perhaps you considered umlaut's comments to be fair, respectful, and enlightening. So be it.
I, on the other hand, indeed resented umlaut's overall scornful, insulting, and dismissive rejection of those who hold a different view as "childish", "bumper-sticker", and so forth.
Neither you nor your like-minded friends have seen fit to specify exactly what you think the proper approach is; I doubt if I would feel bound by it in any case. For my part, I do not feel bound to ignore or avoid the implicit challenge in umlaut's comments; thus, I presented a rebuttal. Take it or leave it. A single contained response does not constitute a "flame war", in which deranged commenters hijack a thread and go back and forth endlessly.
You're not the first person to roll your eyes at my comments and deride them as "mere" ego, cleverness, sophistry, etc. You might want to add "narcissistic" or "nihilistic", just to mix it up a little. Again, you're entitled to your judgement, and in any case I have no power to alter it; it's certainly not going to deter me from commenting as I see fit.
Meanwhile, apart from your exasperated put-downs-- transpersonal in nature, I gather, arising from noble purpose beyond my comprehension-- I haven't noticed you making any great contributions to the ego-transcending search for truth which you imply ought to generally abide here. By all means provide an example to put me to shame and inspire me, to show me what "adding something to the world" really means. You don't have the authority to tell me to stop. Next you'll flag me for "hate speech"!
Ctrl-z's snide little asides and ludicrous conception of my nature and purpose are so far astray that I need say no more about them.
Thanks for your time.
Florie,
If we just let these attacks go, people may think they have some substance. Little Brother wrote a post against another poster that was nothing but a juvenile attack. I don't think those things should go without comment. There are a bunch of trolls here whose only purpose is to attack Obama. There's no reason to let that get by either.
The lack of nuance and understanding of our world and government here is depressing. It's like the polar opposite of the bumper sticker right wing websites.
1. Lesser evil.
Barack Obama:
A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review, Obama worked as a community organizer and practiced as a civil rights attorney before serving in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004.
Project (DCP), a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes in Greater Roseland (Roseland, West Pullman, and Riverdale) on Chicago's far South Side.During his three years as the DCP's director, its staff grew from 1 to 13 and its annual budget grew from $70,000 to $400,000, with accomplishments including helping set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants' rights organization in Altgeld Gardens.
Obama directed Illinois' Project Vote from April to October 1992, a voter registration drive with a staff of 10 and 700 volunteers; it achieved its goal of registering 150,000 of 400,000 unregistered African-Americans in the state, and led to Crain's Chicago Business naming Obama to its 1993 list of "40 under Forty" powers to be.
He sponsored and led unanimous, bipartisan passage of legislation to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they detained and legislation making Illinois the first state to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations.
Not evil
Dick Cheney:
He attended Yale University, but, he flunked out.
Among the many votes he cast during his tenure in the House, he voted in 1979 with the majority against making Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday a national holiday, but then voted with the majority in 1983 when the measure passed.He voted against the creation of the U.S. Department of Education, citing his concern over budget deficits and expansion of the federal government, and claiming that the Department was an encroachment on states' rights. He voted against funding Head Start, but reversed his position in 2000.
Cheney served as the Secretary of Defense from March 1989 to January 1993 under President George H. W. Bush. He directed the United States invasion of Panama and Operation Desert Storm in the Middle East.
Cheney left the Department of Defense and joined the American Enterprise Institute a conservative think tank.
Cheney's record as CEO was subject to some dispute among Wall Street analysts; a 1998 merger between Halliburton and Dresser Industries attracted the criticism of some Dresser executives for Halliburton's lack of accounting transparency.[46] During Cheney's tenure, Halliburton changed its accounting practices regarding revenue realization of disputed costs on major construction projects.[47] Cheney resigned as CEO of Halliburton on July 25, 2000. As vice president, he argued that this step removed any conflict of interest. Cheney's net worth, estimated to be between $30 million and $100 million, is largely derived from his post at Halliburton, as well as the Cheneys gross income of nearly $8.82 million.[48]
In 1997, along with Donald Rumsfeld, William Kristol and others, Cheney founded the "Project for the New American Century," a neoconservative U.S. think tank whose self-stated goal is to "promote American global leadership. He was also part of the board of advisers of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) before becoming vice president.
You know the rest of the story, lying shooting people in the face etc.
Evil or not evil?
Yes Obama voted wrong on FISA and I have no idea why politically he made such a decision. The AIPAC speech was horrendous.
What none of you "no lesserevilism" bumper sticker folks don't understand is this...
"When thinking about politics and government, do you consider yourself to be...
Very conservative
Somewhat conservative
MODERATE
Somewhat liberal
Very liberal
UNSURE/REFUSED"
In August 2008, Americans answered that question this way: (1) 20% of Americans considered themselves to be very conservative; (2) 40% of Americans considered themselves to be somewhat conservative; (3) 2% of Americans considered themselves to be moderate; (4) 27% of Americans considered themselves to be somewhat liberal; (5) 9% of Americans considered themselves to be very liberal; and (6) 3% of Americans did not know or refused to answer."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/the_biggest_missing_story_in_p.html
This is our country.
In a democracy, one needs to win to have a say. Even then, you need a 2/3 majority congress or a same party congress and executive or you just have two wrangling parties. One based of folks that got involved to make a better place for the little average people, the other to pass laws to help their company pay less taxes or get more government contracts.
So if you are the first and the country claims to be the second, what do you do?
A. Stick to your ideals, and lose 60% of all Americans thus losing the vote, thus leaving this country to a bunch of thieves?
B. Make compromises to at least keep the wolves from returning us back to the days of the robber barons.
The motives are entirely different.
If you're an idealist and believe in going with your conscious, "give me liberty or give me death" put your John Hancock on the ballot large enough so the king can read it so he knows who's head goes in the noose, then as I said I commend your boldness. The world needs you. But this world isn't one that is 5000 miles away from it's oppressors that must send wooden boats across the ocean to enforce their rules...
___________________________________________________________________________________ "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it and then misapplying the wrong remedies. " Groucho Marx
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
H. L. Mencken
UMLAUT!
LITTLE BROTHER AND ERROL ARE TROLLS! YOU WILL SPEND ALL DAY DEBATING THEM TO NO END. THEY ARE TURNING UP THE HEAT HERE TO GET GOOD PEOPLE WHO COME HERE WANTING TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT TO NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA.
BELIEVE ME. DON'T FALL FOR LITTLE BROTHERS SOPHISTRY WHICH SAYS NOTHING. DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME, THEY WILL DRAG THE DISCOURSE DOWN A DARK ROAD AND LEAVE YOU THERE.
TRUST ME ON THIS.
RIC ABRIEU IS ONE TOO. MANY OTHERS I AM AFRAID. THEY WANT TO SCARE OFF REAL PEOPLE WHO COME TO THIS SITE AND WANT TO JOIN THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT. IT IS JUST CIRCULAR LOGIC GOING NOWHERE.
I THINK YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, JUST POST WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE REALLY DISCUSSING ISSUES AND ARE TALKING ABOUT CHANGE. THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT. THEY ARE ANGRY AND BITTER LEFTIES OR TROLLS,EITHER WAY, THEY DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK.
THEY ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THE MOVEMENT AT ALL, NOT EVEN IN A THIRD PARTY LOCALLY OR OTHERWISE. MOST PROGRESSIVE PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT IT IS MUCH BETTER TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T HAVE 4 OR 8 MORE YEARS OF BUSH/MCCAIN/PALIN AND TO TAKE OUR CHANCES WITH OBAMA.
WORK LOCALLY FOR THE GREENS BUT RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A DRAGON TO SLAY AND THAT DRAGON IS THE NEOCONS, NOT THE DEMOCRATS, WHO I AGREE AREN'T THAT GREAT, BUT I WOULD GLADLY SIDE WITH A LESSER EVIL ENEMY TO SLAY A MUCH GREATER ONE.
You're the one screaming-- and I'M a "troll"?
Doesn't anybody screen these calls?
If you aren't a troll you do a killer impression of one. Ever consider Vegas?
you've been reported and you'll be reported
Do you OWN this site, Florie. Are the TROLLS treading on private property. The TROLLS should be sent to re-education camps!! FIE! DAMN TROLLS!! What would Obama do?
Wow, thanks for all that. Brilliant!
Umlaut
You write, apparently without irony, of describing those people who dare not to vote for either Obama or McCain as idealists yet it would appear to many that it is the fans of Obama who would seem to merit that definition. Obama's supporters laud Obama for speaking out against the Iraq war yet conveniently ignore the rather substantial fact that this [alleged] antiwar candidate has voted each and every time to fund the occupation. They ignore the fact that Obama, the [alleged[ antiwar candidate wishes to leave close to 100,000 troops in Iraq even after his phased [as opposed to immediate] withdrawal finally takes place along with 10,000 civilian contractors such as Blackwater. I seriously doubt if these proposals by the [alleged] antiwar candidate is going to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.
Obama's fans offer nary a word of protest that their [alleged] antiwar candidate endorses Bush's policy of sending more American soldiers into Afghanistan where they will contribute to the slaughter of more innocent civilians and children. This is also the same candidate who wishes, like Bush and McCain, to send American forces into Pakistan while also uttering bellicose rhetoric vis a vis Iran. It also should not be forgotten that the [alleged] antiwar candidate also wishes to increase the military budget as well as increasing the size of the military.
Looking at Obama's militaristic policies is not idealism; on the contrary, it is realism, i.e. being realistic enough to know that Obama, the [alleged] antiwar candidate is just as big of a warmonger as is Bush and McCain, which is why many liberals will have the wisdom and intelligence not to vote for Barack Obama. Agent of change? More like agent of more of the same who will have no hesitation if elected to order American fighter planes to keep dropping 500 and 2000 lb. bombs on innocent Afghan children and, it would appear, on Pakistanis as well.
Correction to the above post. It is actually worse than I stated. Obama has said that wants to leave not 10,000 civilian contractors in Iraq but rather 100,000 in that beleaguered country, which means more Iraqis who will be intimidated, harassed and terrorized by Americans.
Error-ll has already proven himself an unreliable poster in terms of factual accuracy.
Error-ll: come on. If you want to be taken seriously, include links to reliable sources (i.e. Not Drudge or Newsmax type sites).
I don't know where you get your info erroll. I'd like to see some independent sources of these claims. It's not what Obama says---maybe Rush is claiming this...
If Cheney did get impeached (fat chance) could George legally pardon him? Even if the Democrats win this election the neocons are not going to go away. They will simply regroup and continue to pursue their agenda for the New American Century. It will take a couple of decades before these folks welcome rocking on the front porch.
Cheyney should be tried for treason and hanged.
Gore--oh sorry, the Goracle, didnt protest the vote in 2000. I mean, how pathetic was that? Jackson was going to stage a major black rally about disenfranchised voters and the dems stopped him.
The demos helped Bush the last 8 years--when its all said and done, history will look back on this period and say: wow-there was no opposition party. They could have nailed Bush in a million ways but they let him get away with it--worse, they helped him.
Are the Dems better than the Republicans? Yes, but not by much.
And Howard Dean's attack on Nader is funny but the examples cited are hardly damning. So because Bush supporters voted for Nader that makes him even more right wing than the Dems? So because Al Capone opened the first soup kitchen in Chicago anyone who helps the poor is actually connected to the mafia...
Armey sez: "Had I known or believed then what I believe now, I would have publicly opposed [the war] resolution right to the bitter end, and I believe I might have stopped it from happening."
***
Frankly, Armey got off easy.
It required anthrax to flip Daschle and Leahy on the PATRIOT (sic) Act.
Blue Thunder
Dick is just getting going! Don't fool yourselves, this entity (hardly human) is not going to put down the mits after starting the fight! He and his cabal have big plans! Really big plans! The only hope is IMPEACH AND PUT AWAY. Hardly likely, so put on your seat belt, the ride is going to get extremely rough!
Vice President Dick Cheney's Incredible and Deadly Lie
By Deceiving a Congressional Leader, Cheney Sent Us to War on False Pretenses and Violated the Separation of Powers - as Well as the Criminal Law
by John W. Dean
We have strayed a bit from the topic.
Dick Cheney is seriously unbalanced, and a danger to the whole planet.
-- EKATON --
I don't see that the topic of the article has been sidetracked necessarily. The PROBLEM is still, "Who ya gonna call?!". Maybe Vincent Bugliosi?
JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA ON WHAT IS GOING ON WITH NADER. I VOTED FOR HIM IN 2000 BUT I WAS IN CT SO DONT YELL AT ME.
Here is an excerpt from an article on Salon entitled, DEAN HITS NADER WHERE IT HURTS by Mary Jacoby.
Howard Dean wasted little time getting to the point in a debate with third-party presidential candidate Ralph Nader on Friday. After listening to Nader's standard posturing about how only he can save the Democratic Party and the nation from the "corporate interests" that have consumed politics and government, the former Vermont governor struck hard: "Ralph, I think you're being disingenuous about your candidacy this year."
In his rapid-fire delivery, the onetime Democratic presidential front-runner rattled off all the ways he saw Nader as a hypocrite: Nearly half the signatures Nader gathered in a failed attempt to get on the Arizona ballot were from Republicans. A significant amount of his campaign kitty comes from Bush-Cheney donors. And, said Dean, "you accepted the support of a right-wing, fanatic Republican group that is antigay in order to help you get on the ballot in Oregon" -- a reference to the Oregon Family Council, which produces a "Christian Voter Guide" and campaigns against gay marriage.
"This is not going to help the progressive cause in America," Dean continued. "The thing that upsets me so much about this is, you have the right to ... get in bed with whoever you want to, but don't call the Democratic Party full of corporate interests. They have their problems, we all have ours, none of us are pure. And this campaign of yours is far from pure."
Dean's riff was greeted with gleeful applause, and Nader appeared momentarily shaken by its ferocity. Dean insisted, "My purpose here is not to smear Ralph Nader," which prompted Nader to respond sarcastically, "Oh, no. Not at all!"
The Jacoby article was written in 2004, but since Salon.com is presently a blatant propaganda arm for Obama Campaign Headquarters, there's not much question of their own political bias.
But however devastating Dr. Dean's critique might have been at that moment, the critique only resonates with Democratic Party members and supporters, insofar as they are perforce True Believers in the corrupt duopoly which has undermined and devoured the Amerikan political process.
Those who reflexively oppose and despise third-party candidacies in general, and Ralph Nader in particular, will naturally interpret, and trumpet, his campaign's acceptance of support from Republicans as a kiss of death and incontrovertible proof of his self-serving ambition, hypocrisy, and utter unfitness for office. To provide a very simple illustration of just how clouded this judgement is: they confuse Ralph Nader with Holy Joe Lieberman.
Lieberman is an authentic example of an opportunistic snake who invited and accepted Republican support because he actually identifies with Republican values, and mounted an entirely bogus campaign as an "independent Democrat" to achieve his end of retaining power.
Anyone who claims that Ralph Nader's candidacy is a Lieberman-style hijacking of the political process, or that Nader covertly espouses Republican values and/or is himself a plutocratic elitist in progressive's clothing, needs to have political cataract surgery performed before further discussion is possible.
Given that Nader is not a scurrilous "Lieberman", despite Dean's insinuations, Nader's willingness to accept financial support from Republicans makes sense when one considers that Nader is a TRUE "maverick", insofar as he clearly and consistently repudiates the malignant grip of the twin tentacles of the Amerikan duopoly, and has been excoriated as a destructive force for so doing.
Third-party candidacies are taboo and streng verboten, given the lock the Republican/Democrat cabal has on the polity, and however "shady" or suspect Nader's support from Republicans might seem upon superficial consideration, it is more than matched by the shady and suspect determination of the Democratic Party to thwart and block Nader's candidacy. The Democratic Party has more to fear from Nader than the Republicans, of course, because the Democrats are perpetually dependent on attracting lesser-evilist, weak-tea "progressives" to boost their unstable and diminished political base.
The Democratic organization is hysterically jealous of their credulous liberal and progressive devotees, and fiercely resists anyone or anything that threatens to lure this sub-flock of sheep away. (That's why the Democrats tolerate little Dennis Kucinich, incidentally-- to give moderate leftish Democrats hope and justify their support, even reluctant and reserved support.)
The Republican leadership can afford to stand back and let Nader do his thing-- and indeed, the same Democratic Nader critics who are otherwise so quick to preach the gospel of "realpolitik" ought to give the Republicans CREDIT for supporting Nader to enhance his "spoiler" status instead of displacing their anger on Nader. After all, aren't the lesser-evilists constantly excusing THEIR candidates for persistently engaging in whatever underhandedness, hypocrisy, and mendacity is necessary to win?
Meanwhile, the Democrats have done, and will do, anything and everything to undermine and marginalize Nader's candidacy-- principally by keeping him off the ballot and excluding him from debates with the anointed candidates. Dr. Dean's 2004 posturing notwithstanding, the Democrats do not occupy the moral high ground. Loyal Democrats and resigned lesser-evilist moderates THINK they do-- but in this regard they are no different from their Republican counterparts.
Intelligently and articulately well stated. "The Democratic Party has more to fear from Nader than the Republicans, of course..." I agree. Obama seems quite comfortable arguing against the policies of Bush and McCain but when a television reporter asked Obama about a year ago questions concerning Nader Obama appeared to get a little nervous, perhaps because he realized how shallow his progressive credentials appear when compared to that of Ralph Nader. As you correctly point out, this is why the Democrats will make sure that Nader's presence is not seen and heard in the upcoming presidential debates [so much for democracy rearing its ugly head] though they have been less successful, fortunately, in keeping Nader off the ballot this year as Democracy Now! reported last Friday that Nader is now on the ballot [to the dismay of the Democrats, undoubtedly] in 45 states.
"a lesser-evilist". That to me is a cynical, simplistic cop-out. I see no evil at all in trying to get elected within the confines of a broken system---to work to improve the broken system when elected.
Right on! All these clever words are just clutter, and add nothing to the search for solutions or truth.
Oh, certainly cynical! "[S]implistic cop-out"? That's in the eye of the beholder.
The TERM "lesser-evil(ist)" is simple enough, but it comprehends a diverse and multifarious range of beliefs and behaviors.
But to respond to your point: It's obvious that you "see no evil" (hear no evil; speak no evil) in working within the duopolistic system. You persistently object to commenters who refuse to agree that the Democratic Party has redeeming qualities and is deserving of respect and at least nominal support.
My argument is that the duopoly itself is the malignant tumor WITHIN the broken system, both cause and effect of the breakage, and that candidates produced by that tumor carry its pathological DNA within themselves regardless of how superficially attractive and wholesome they may appear.
It may be the case that a candidate who offers himself or herself as "part of the solution", a proponent of reform and "change", is being sincere. I'm cynical about this, too, but for the sake of argument assume the candidate is totally straightforward and aboveboard. This is exactly the status of a virus or cancer cell that behaves like a "friendly" entity, or mimics a healthy cell, in order to elude defense mechanisms, penetrate to the healthy cells' nuclei, and reproduce.
In my experience, mainstream-party politicians become what they behold, and are either fundamentally unwilling to "fix" a system-- which, after all, has successfully gratified their ambition and made them important and powerful-- or they are limited to "baby steps" by countervailing interests within that broken system.
From my perspective, it's the feel-good vacuous slogans: "Yes, We Can!"; "Change You Can Believe In!" and empty nostrums: "holding his feet to the fire"; "keeping up constant pressure to move him towards progressive policies" that are the simplistic cop-outs.
The TERM "lesser-evil(ist)" is simple enough, but it comprehends a diverse and multifarious range of beliefs and behaviors.
"comprises"
"It's obvious that you "see no evil" (hear no evil; speak no evil) in working within the duopolistic system. "
Wrong. I see no viable alternative. Some change is better than no change at all. Carter worked within the system and his stress on human rights changed the world for a time. Haiti, Nicaragua, and Iran were able to throw off tyrants because of his conditioning US aid on human rights.
I see plenty of evil in both parties and in the system. I just don't think that voting 3rd party is productive to change if all it does is split the left-wing and insure the election goes to some neofascist warmonger---making things even worse.
If you believe that voting 3rd party will force the democrats to become more progressive, you're not paying attention to recent history. Losses by anti-war candidates like McGovern have only pushed the democrats farther to the right to get the centrist voters.
I don't have statistics (this is merely anecdotal), but when CAFTA was being pushed and coming up for a vote, I know a number of Republicans who were seriously considering the Nader literature on CAFTA. I don't know whether or not it gained Nader any support, since most of the Republicans I know will vote "Republican" anyway, due to that deeply ingrained identity. The point is, that the pot is not so monolithic in it's separation of left/right, Rep/Dem, etc. Examples of late are the Ron Paul campaign, as well as the 911 Truth groups.
What a beacon of light that "maverick" Howard Dean turned out to be. DNC! DNC! DNC! GO HOWARD!!!!!!!
JUST GREAT. COMMON DREAMS HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER BY A BUNCH OF TROLLS.
As if we can't spot you. I vote that we ignore the trolls and spend most of our time engaging in real debate. I think that they are operating like viruses trying to make us waste our time by debating them.
Don't fall for their trap. They are just irritating enough to make you want to reply and blow of some steam or practice some typing but really life is too short to waste with these people.
Maybe I am wrong but CD seems to get a good mix of people from all different backgrounds and could be a really good way of bringing new people into the progressive movement. I think that is how we should be spending most of our time, engaging with people who really want to make change. I see them all over the site. REAL GENUINE PEOPLE.
I know it might be sporting to do but it is no contest. If you are a strong OBAMA supporter I still don't think you have to play defense. I don't think any rational people are listening to their arguments.
I mean, they all have the same tone and say the same thing over and over. They think if they put in a new fact about how the DEMOCRATS dropped the ball again or about how OBAMA is selling out again then we will be impressed at how they CLTR-C and then CLTR-V.
Real impressive stuff. To keep asking someone why we should vote for NADER and all they can say is OBAMA sucks. I mean they are so stupid, that they will take me literally and say, that is not all we are sayin! It all just sounds like REPUG talking points.
Get a life! I mean, like it or not OBAMA will probably get in. Deal with it. Go back to your WOMAN-HATING, HOMO-EROTIC, CHEST BEATING EMPTY lives and leave the good people alone. You know, the people who are actually trying to make the world a better place.
GOOD PEOPLE OF COMMON DREAMS! THEY HAVE NO SOUL, DON'T FALL INTO THEIR TRAP! YOU CAN'T WIN BECAUSE THEY DON'T CARE! DON'T BE SUCKED INTO THEIR BLACK HOLES OF LOGIC!
THERE ARE LOTS OF GREAT VIDEOS ON UTUBE!
GO LONGHORNS!!!!!!!
"DON'T BE SUCKED INTO THEIR BLACK HOLES OF LOGIC! "
Hey, if they were using logic they'd get sucked in. Logic is not their friend. They're not even on speaking terms.
All of this is so true. These trolls are everywhere, sad souls who go wandering in search of trouble.
Highkarate,
I also sense an inordinate fear of "BLACK HOLES OF LOGIC". It's O.K., REALLY!!
Highkarate,
...(love the fragrance)..."HOMO-EROTIC, CHEST BEATING"..."GO LONGHORNS!!!!!!!" There really is HOPE FOR CHANGE here!
Mr FISHY CHIPS-
While I don't know if you are a troll or not, this was meant to besmirch would be RIGHT-WING TROLLS who are HELL-BENT on disrupting TRUE PROGRESSIVES in their search for SUBSTANTIAL AND REVOLUTIONARY DISCOURSE.
If you don't think this applies to you then so be it but THE TRUTH is not one of you so called NADER supporters can give ONE good reason as to why anyone should vote for NADER instead of OBAMA.
Now remember, I am not talking about the fact that NADER or MCKINNEY would obviously be better for the PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT but how, now this might get tricky for you...ready.....IN REAL LIFE...would it be better to vote for NADER and let MCCAIN/PALIN take over?
OK? DID YOU GET THAT? WELL, NONE OF YOU NADER SUPPORTERS OR TROLLS, OR WHATEVER YOU ARE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO SAY SO WHY YET.
It just leads me to believe that you are not really working to make a change, that you are not working on the local level to promote real change, including working with the GREENS, where their movement is getting the most traction.
ALL YOU NADIRS JUST USE CIRCULAR LOGIC AND DON'T DEBATE THE REAL ISSUE, which is that we have to do all we can to keep MCCAIN/PALIN out of office. Yes, on many issues they are the same and....blah blah blah.
IT IS AD NAUSEUM FROM YOU PEOPLE. SOME OF YOU ARE MORE SOPHISTICATED BUT IT STILL IS THE SAME THING.
NADER was actually dropped by the GREENS as their candidate in 2004. Work on the local level why don't you? But to say that there is no difference between the two parties is to not live in the real world.
SO EITHER WAY, YOU ARE A TROLL OR SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T REALLY KNOW THAT A MCCAIN PRESIDENCY IS GOING TO BE MUCH WORSE FOR THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT.
I am sorry that NADER or MCKINNEY is unelectable, but do you think MCKINNEY will get anywhere with MCCAIN? Or JESSE JACKSON JR, who by the way is on OBAMA'S campaign team.
I am sure you will ignore all my points as usual so make like a seal and go PHOQUE yourself.
In talking about the separation of powers, and violating the constitution, Dean completely leaves out that the entire Congress illegally abdicated their authority to declare war and gave the President a blank check.
It's not just Bush and Cheney. We are staring down a hydra.
That's what I've been saying. Our politicians are mostly self-serving, lying hypocrites, and it's time to throw them all out of power. It's also time to pass legislation that makes capitalism benefit society at large, not just shareholders.
Essentially, we need to purge and create the system anew.
Can I throw in that I'm really scared for America's economic future? Ish does not look good in any way, shape or form. 2009-2010 will be extremely interesting times if a few articles here and on counterpunch prove to be true. I don't like to be a doomsdayer but I really think that people will get pissed enough to riot - on a massive scale.
I called for the impeachment of Dick Cheney a year ago.
The Democrats didn't listen then and they don't listen to Progressives now.
Yet the Democrats blackmail us by claiming that our votes will (again! they say) lead to a Rethuglican in the White House.
The Democratic Congress has consistently funded the madness, the crimes, the scandals of our Mafia government.
But in the interest of tri-partisanship I suggest, free of charge, the following Dem slogan -
Vote for Obama to protect us from the Democrats in Congress!
I vote we impeach Dick Cheney. I support Armey in bringing charges against Dick Cheney and telling the world what he did from the Senate floor. Oh, Armey is Republican and he's from Texas. I guess it will have to be a grassroots movement, which will require a gifted community organizer.
No surprise here......Cheney is a PNAC Israel FIRST Zionist......just ask his former Chief of Staff Ashkenazi Libby, and his current Chief of Staff Ashkenazi Addington.
Cheney lies so naturally and easily because he is a Zionist.
...and what can we expect from Joe Biden, when he chirps, "...I'm a Zionist, too...".
OR, from an Obama who campaigned for Joe Lieberman in beating out Lamont, a perfectly good candidate who also happened to be an anti-war candidate in 2006?
It would be extremely enlightening if someone were to ask McCain/Palin whether they would investigate and prosecute members of the current administration, should they win the election in november.
we all know that they lie constantly and as is obvious, Palin has no time for the legal system - ignoring subpoenas etc. but i think that their answers or reactions would tell a lot - it's a sort of "when did you stop beating your wife" question.
unfortunately i don't see either candidate agreeing to appearing on "the view" again, so i guess all the hard questioning is over for this election cycle.
"Madison nicely explained the differences in Federalist No. 14:"
"A democracy consequently will be confined to a small spot"
Nicely hell. This author is attempting to plant a subliminal message that we can't have democracy, that we must depend on oligarchy, because the USA is too big for democracy. Kaka on that. Many thanks to the author for relaying the news about Darth Viper, but let's relay the news without further oppressing the people. Our great potential is unrealized thanks to the indoctrinated oppression.
We see the well-documented crimes of a Republican administration carried out by figures like Cheney who deserve to be in The Hague, and somehow the lesson for Democrats is to continue their absurd attacks on progressives with a gusto that they never bring against their bipartisan buddies.
I think that RichM was right when he elsewhere predicted that this shrill nonsense will increase until November.
Well said.
I think RichM was right, too.
Well if you guys are gonna line up, you should contact SnowWolf, Owl Eyes and Tutti-Fruitti.
RichM, along with his fellow trolls, is a primary source of the "shrill nonsense."
q
Nah, the rightwing trolls are their own cause.
Sioux Rose
Okay, Poet... I'll take the challenge! Although there are many systems that characterize human nature in relationship to good and evil, there are other systems that look at 3 motivational forces (ego, super-ego, id and/or conscious, unconscious and subconscious). Jung would say CHENEY is the shadow, the dark side of human nature. The Course in Miracles would say Cheney is one who has not evolved beyond the immediate self-interest of the ego, what might otherwise be termed "the enfant terrible." To me he is the most evident expression (in the Western world) of the unmitigated force of Mars, which claims that MIGHT makes right, and then goes on to spend others' fortunes on a dazzling display of absolutely heinous weaponry that it's all too prepared to use on LIVING human beings.
To me, Cheney is looking into history's mirror to see where the call and clamor for war takes us, again and again. The central difference now being the sophistication and "efficiency" of the weapons in use. Cheney's face is tantamount to Scrooge looking at his "ghost of future" tense... is this what we, mankind, agree to let ourselves become? Is the empty act of endless shopping, consuming fuel as if it was some kind of Divine birthright while equatorial nations (Cuba, Haiti, India) rebound from climatic vicissitudes that warrant the mantra of global warming fears sound enough reason to KILL others? MURDER their children?
This is the turning point for mankind, the scene in the great shared movie where the lead characters either wake up, or take us all over the cliff... it is where there must be a worldwide epiphany and related revelation that it is time to PUT DOWN ARMS and join hands. I am not thrilled that trafficking in weapons is still progressing as business as usual under Mars rules. Cheney is the poster child for this worldwide misuse of DIVINE Resources... they ALL come from the Great Mother, that is nature, and for her to watch her treasures used as one side leaves the other a blur of bloodied broken pieces, a scene played over a million times, is impossible as it would be for ANY mother. Thus you can expect NATURE to play equalizer, if the folly of man(kind) enables the type of action that one such as Cheney has so blatantly gotten away with. Isn't it interesting that he brought his false cake to DICK (phallic) Armey (war/Mars rules).
In literature we are taught to look to names for what they say about a character. It's naive to think it's any different in what we term the playing out of "reality."
The part about “ability to minimize nukes…” is pure bullshit, as if Army was a child to believe this nonsense. That’s where I stopped reading the rest of the article. I don’t have to eat the whole rotten egg to find out that it’s rotten, do I?
It's odd how we as a nation are so hands-off of the dictator Dick Cheney. Most countries do not treat their authoritarian leaders with such deference when their time has come. Perhaps it is our animal appreciation of Cheney's killer instincts which transmit to us when we simply see his face on the television set. It is something akin to "leave that one alone" because of it's sheer criminal danger. One day, perhaps years from now, Dick Cheney will receive a knock on his door and be told "to come with us" much like the architects of the Nazi party were systematically hunted down after their era of pure evil. One thing is clear: a monster walks among us.
"One day, perhaps years from now, Dick Cheney will receive a knock on his door and be told "to come with us" much like the architects of the Nazi party were systematically hunted down after their era of pure evil."
Oh, I LIKE that vision.
"If Armey is right..."
The author goes through this whole condemnation and blah blah blah and then points out that, oh, of course it may not be true.
As Rosanne Rosanna-Danna once said, "Nevermind"
"As Rosanne Rosanna-Danna once said, 'Nevermind' (sic)"
Actually, that expression was used by a different Gilda Radner character, Emily Litella.
q
So, you "progressive democrats" that want us "independent progressives" back in the fold? Instead of making us feel guilty about doing what has been shown to be right, get vocal within the party about accountability.
Nothing makes me sicker than to hear our democratic leadership talk about how important accountability and progressive social issues are, then turn around and VOTE WITH THE ADMINISTRATION.
I will support Obama when he stops voting with George Bush. I don't listen to what Obama says, I watch how he votes on the senate floor. (doubly true of our VP candidate).
And for the final time, Nader did not cost Gore the election. Studies show that a significant percentage of Nader voters would have voted for Bush if Nader was not in the race. Gore would have won any recount. If the democratic leadership would have been paying attention to voter dis-enfranchisement, Gore would have won in a landslide.
Another "It's all the Dems' fault" post from another troll posing as a progressive.
So the responsibility for the republican theft of the 2000 election lies with the Democrats. The folks who actually engineered it are completely blameless, according to you.
q
Nobody that I read here says that "it's all the Dems' fault".
What I read is that the Dems are as culpable as the Rethuglicans.
Why you keep insulting me and the people I admire for their postings, in order to garner my vote, is beyond my understanding.
Okay, this is even beyond super-hero soap opera melodrdama, my questions are:
Is Cheney the filthiest Karma in existence on the planet today?
or
Is Cheney the instrument of Karma chosen to reflect the collective evil of us all?
Siouxrose--help us to understand.
Poet
Oakknot
Why, at this late stage of the game, must so many of us discussing the topics on CD continue to harp on Nader et al...if the third party folks want to be included by the MSM et al, they they need to speak up in the time between elections AND we who would want them to be heard need to support them. All IMHO.
It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees. Zapata
Al Gore along with his chief Bill Clinton were ALREADY waging war--genocide actually--against Iraq, and it was THEIR policy of regime change that Bush acted on.
So enough of your BS history.
". . . it was THEIR policy of regime change that Bush acted on."
Sorry, dude, but this statement is not quite true. The bill that Clinton signed in 1998 simply provided assistance to the Iraqi opposition. Nowhere did it call for an invasion of Iraq by the US military.
Of course Bush is going to try to place responsibility for the greatest foreign policy fuckup in US history on someone else.
q
The Clinton regime, transition from Bush I to Bush II
"...Clinton bombed Iraq several times weekly for eight years...The strategy was to extensively bomb water purification facilities and power generating facilities with the explicit intention to spread diseases that would affect children. The idea was to pressure ordinary Iraqis to overthrow Saddam, with the knowledge that if they did so, the pedicide would cease. But the Iraqis blamed Washington for this catastrophe, not Saddam. When Saddam offered to accede to Clinton's requirements for ending the bombing, Clinton abruptly replied that no possible concessions on Saddam's part would lead him to end the bombings/sanctions.".....FROM: "The Threat of U.S. Fascism: An Historical Precedent" by Alan Nassar, COMMON DREAMS, August 2, 2007.
... a lovely way to aid the Iraqi opposition...and a wonderful example of cooperation between fascist neocon globalists and fascist neoliberal globalists
Great logic Chips.
It follows that any participation in electoral process amounts to participation in elections in Stalin's USSR or in Hitler's Nazi Germany, that is to legitimizing the current regime. An illusion that We the People still play any role in this US only prolong the agony of the regime, which had passed the point of no return to the Republic intended by the Constitution. Global olygarchy is ruling by decree now not only in the US. We have to stop thinking in liberal terms and be prepared to new era of revolutions.
The sooner we all understand that the only wide non-participation in the pluto-fascist system have any choice to succeed, the sooner the house of card will collapse one step at the time. First, financial collapse we are witnessing now, the replay of 1929 only much worse. Then economic collapse followed by riots a la 1968, only much worse. Then open dictatorship based on the set of decrees, issued by Bill Clinton the Wide Smile and George Bush the Stupid Smirk for last 16 years.
And collapse will do the trick. It ain't be pretty but do humanity has any choice of survival with this system of values, promoted by private profit seekers under condition of exhosted resourses? The time for words is long passed. Prepare for the real tough ride.
Amen.
Don't vote so everything will fall apart. This isn't what I'd call a pursuasive argument.
Still, I think it would work better on right wing sites.
Why don't you go over to one of them and tell them all the reasons they shouldn't vote?
Your quote may well be true but it does not change the fact that, despite the claims of Bush supporters, Bush's invasion of Iraq had no basis in the act signed by Clinton in '98.
It also has no relvenace to the subject of the article. The lie told by Cheney was his and his alone.
I agree that Clinton was not a good guy. He was almost as bad as the Bushes.
q
Again we come back to bad and almost as bad.
q
You're really starting to grab at straw men now....
Mister Chips
Very well stated.
Thanks Mr. Chips
We seem to have a short memory here.
This seems to be an example of revisionist history since quickstepper has conveniently ignored Clinton's sanctions against Iraq, which killed anywhere from half a million to a million Iraqis. Clinton also launched Tomahawk missiles into civilian neighborhoods, creating "collateral damage". Or should these actions by Clinton be excused because they were done by a neoliberal Democrat?
I ignored nothing. I simply pointed out that Bush's assault on Iraq did not have justification in the bill Clinton signed in 1998.
The only Tomahawk missile attack launched under Clinton's orders was the one made in retaliation for the attempt on Bush 41's life. Three people were killed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm).
The claim of strikes in residential neighborhoods came only from Saddam's own sources.
Of course, the truth means nothing for you trolls. You're on this board solely for the purposes of lying and obfuscation.
q
Clinton was the boss on that one... Not Al Gore.
Karlof1
Good point.
Madcow
What you seem to be ignoring is that the Democratic party, which you seem to have such faith in, has refused, as Dean points out in his article, to hold Cheney and Bush accountable by calling for their impeachment. You talk about the war in Iraq [one should also throw in the illegal occupation of Afghanistan] while again ignoring the fact that the Democrats, which you revere so highly, continue to fund the occupations of those two disasters which have now become the responsibility of the Democrats. This all leads one to justifiably believe that the Democrats and the Republicans, as Gore Vidal has pointed out, are simply two sides of the same coin.
I don't revere or have faith in the democratic party. I realize that they have capitulated and that they're far too beholden to the corporations. But I don't think it's as simple as that either. Politics has and is playing a part in funding the war and impeachment. Politics, as in getting elected, keeping a majority in both houses, and increasing the size of that majority. I think the democratic party HAS put it's self-interest before the constitution. I think the party leaders believe that cutting off war funding or impeaching will result in their losing control of both houses.
What I don't believe is that we should hold Obama accountable for every mistake the democratic party has made.
This is the same party that has been high-jacked by conservative blue-dogs and Clinton- DLC types. Are we going to say that Obama is responsible for that?
Erroll, just in case you missed it:
"Democrats under unified government (i.e., when Democrats control both Congress and the White House) have been remarkably institutionally-minded, and the separation of powers has remained viable. On the other hand, conservative Republicans - as I have explained in my book Broken Government (just out in paperback too) - easily place party loyalty before the responsibilities of the governmental institution in which they serve. The first six years of the Bush/Cheney Administration, for example, were a travesty in Republican denial of institutional responsibilities. In contrast, there is a long list of Democratic House and Senate Chairmen who have a on-going history of refusing to be the rubber-stamps of Democratic Presidents.
For instance, unlike in the situation where Cheney lied to former Majority Leader Armey, when both the Democratic House and Senate suspected that President Lyndon Johnson had lied to them about the incident(s) in the Gulf of Tonkin that provoked Congress to authorize the war in Viet Nam, they took action. In contrast, Republicans have not acted on Cheney's lie to Armey - and surely Washington Post reporter Barton Gellman is not the first person to learn about this lie."
I fail to see how these statements are somehow supposed to obviate what I had written which is that the Democrats, under Nancy Pelosi, have declared impeachment to be off the table, despite the fact that this is one of the most criminal administrations in this country's history and that the Democrats have time and again voted to fund the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, thus insuring that more innocent Afghans and Iraqis will end up being slaughtered by American bombs and bullets, all because the Democrats have continued to fund the unnecessary and unjustified occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet liberals continue to have this blind faith that the Democrats will somehow do the right thing, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Here we go again. It's all the Dems fault!
I guess we're going to see at least 100 posts a day from the trolls on this website trying to place the primary responsibility for Bush and Cheney's sins on the Democrats.
What those who have decided to vote for Obama realize is that the Democrats - even with all of their faults - MAY do the right thing. The republicans never will.
q
One simply stands back in awe at the Obama fans who believe, as quickstepper acknowledges, that Obama "MAY do the right thing." They cannot say why they believe this only that, to use one of Obama's favorite words, they hope that Obama "may do the right thing." There are many people who hope that they win the lottery but that does not mean that that will happen. It would be nice if faith could move mountains but in the real world one should finally realize that Obama is nothing but a corporately owned, militaristic candidate who has done an excellent job in convincing his fans that he is an [alleged] agent of hope and change, despite all evidence to the contrary.
". . . that Obama is nothing but a corporately owned, militaristic candidate who has done an excellent job in convincing his fans that he is an [alleged] agent of hope and change, despite all evidence to the contrary."
This statement is more true of McCain than Obama. McCain is more dependent on corporate money and certainly more aligned with the military than Obama.
q
Excellent job of deflecting the fact that Obama, the alleged man of the people, is backed by the biggest [or what used to be the biggest] names on Wall Street such as Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, J P Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse, as well as the huge hedge fund Citadel Investment Group. Investigator Pam Martens points out that "Seven of the Obama campaign's top 14 donors consisted of officers and employees of the same Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originating and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages." One gets the feeling that this [alleged] fiery populist will not be quoting the words of Pam Martens anytime soon in his stump speeches. As independent film maker and progressive writer John Pilger notes, "A report by United for a Fair Economy, a non-profit group, estimates the total loss to poor Americans of colour who took out sub-prime loans as being between $164 billion and #213 billion: the greatest loss of wealth ever recorded for people of colour in the United States.
Last January, Obama declared that "Washington lobbyists haven't funded my campaign, they won't run my White House and they will not drown out the voices of working Americans when I am president." Obama's rhetoric rings false when one discovers that the Centre for Responsive Politics has found out that the top five contributors to the Obama campaign are registered corporate lobbyists.
Regarding Obama's militarism, liberals, justifiably, take great umbrage at McCain's desire to add more troops into Iraq but yet remain silent when it is revealed that Obama wishes to add more troops to Afghanistan, approximately two to three brigades, which would undoubtedly contribute to even more innocent Afghan civilians and children being ripped apart by 500 lb. and 2000 lb. American bombs. Not exactly the best way to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people, now is it? Americans and delusional liberals laud Obama's phased [as opposed to immediate] withdrawal plan of troops from Iraq while glossing over the fact that the [alleged] antiwar candidate wishes to leave approximately 100,000 U.S. troops in Iraq as well as approximately 100,000 civilian contractors such as Blackwater. Not exactly the best way to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis nor is it the best way to prevent more American deaths, now is it?
All this simply demonstrates that while McCain may be more blatant in his corporatism and militarism Obama's brand of corporate connections and militarism could be seen as being much more pernicious and hypocritical since he and his followers' claim that Obama is an antiwar candidate and a man of the people comes across as being quite false indeed.
Figures lie and liars figure.
You wrote:
"Obama's rhetoric rings false when one discovers that the Centre for Responsive Politics has found out that the top five contributors to the Obama campaign are registered corporate lobbyists."
I went to your source, the Center for Responsive Politics (www.opensecrets.org) and found your statement to be totally untrue:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
Top Contributors to Barack Obama
"This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers."
"Goldman Sachs $691,930
University of California $611,207
Citigroup Inc $448,599
JPMorgan Chase & Co $442,919
Harvard University $435,769
Google Inc $420,174
UBS AG $404,750
National Amusements Inc $389,140
Microsoft Corp $377,235
Lehman Brothers $370,524
Sidley Austin LLP $350,302
Moveon.org $347,463
Skadden, Arps et al $340,264
Time Warner $338,527
Wilmerhale Llp $335,398
Morgan Stanley $318,070
Latham & Watkins $297,400
Jones Day $289,476
University of Chicago $278,885
Stanford University $276,038"
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
Here's opensecrets.org's summary about Obama's fundraising:
"2008 boosted Obama into the position of the most successful presidential fundraiser ever, in addition to this election's presumptive Democratic nominee. He's had no problem bringing in the money or appealing to new donors, and has relied on small online donors and bigger donors nearly equally, which he'll continue to do in months to come. He's also turning to Hillary Clinton's donors—and her bundlers—and asking them for their financial support. In November he'll face Republican John McCain, who has indicated he’ll accept public financing in the general election, while Obama has opted out of the system. He's the first major-party candidate since the system was created to decline taxpayers' money for the general election."
So, Error-ll, the next time you want to attack Obama, maybe you should provide some quotes and links, cause you don't summarize facts well. I think you misinterpreted an article about bundlers and mischaracterized how it related to Obama's overall contributions.
And that's the polite way of saying it.
Did you actually bother reading what I wrote and what you had written? As Pam Martens wrote, and as John Pilger's article makes clear, "Seven of the Obama campaign's top 14 donors..." were bundled which is exactly what opensecrets.org has said. As Pilger's article also states, "Obama is backed by the biggest Wall Street firms and then proceeds to list those corporations that Obama, that alleged populist, has taken money from. As I said on another post, you will score very few points for your side when you engage in such juvenile ad hominem attacks.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/31/9327/
You wrote:
"Last January, Obama declared that "Washington lobbyists haven't funded my campaign, they won't run my White House and they will not drown out the voices of working Americans when I am president." Obama's rhetoric rings false when one discovers that the Centre for Responsive Politics has found out that the top five contributors to the Obama campaign are registered corporate lobbyists."
Error-ll, apparently you can't even quote yourself correctly.
You got caught. Deal with it.
Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. If you had actually bothered reading John Pilger's article, you would have discovered that I wrote that he had cited the Centre for Responsive Politics which again stated that "the top five contributors to the Obama campaign are registered corporate lobbyists". I think that your anger at me is misdirected since it would appear that you, like so many Obamamaniacs, do not wish to acknowledge that your candidate does not hesitate to take money from the big corporations. As Pilger correctly notes, "By offering a 'new', young and apparently progressive face of the Democratic Party-with the bonus of being a member of the black elite-he {Obama] can blunt and divert real opposition."
To use one of your tired cliches, try dealing with the fact that you have been once again exploited and used by another alleged savior of the Democratic Party who has conned Americans and liberals into believing that his corporate, militant rhetoric has been dressed up into the more soothing and deceiving sound bites of hope and change.
Gee Error-ll, are they gonna cut off your checks if you admit you screwed up?
Why don't you provide some links?
Do you realize that all the corporate bundlers listed on the website amount to 4% of Obama's total? And, they're NOT lobbyists.
Excellent! What a brilliant explanation of how the legislative branch failed to counter the executive branch 2000 to 2006. Now we need to analyze the failure from 2006 to 2008 (when Democrats had some legislative control). My guess is that it will go back to the failure to account for lobbyists, or their pervasive influence between parties. I really like this analysis as a starting point to figure out how we've gone so very wrong.
Do you really think they aren't going to steal another election? Our vote doesn't count. The poll numbers are too close to be real. They are just greasing us up.
So I am going to vote for the person I want to be president, Nader. It really won't make a difference anyway and I will feel like I voted for the best person running. Maybe my vote will be counted then.
Undone
Excellent decision. I have never understood the rationalization of the Obama fans that voting for the lesser of two evils such as Obama is somehow justifiable.
Let's see, since our vote doesn't count you're going to vote.
No, that's not quite it.
Since our vote doesn't count you're going to vote for someone who can't win because then it won't matter if your vote isn't counted.
No.
Okay, I think I finally get it.
You're going to make sure your vote is counted because you figure they'll count the votes that don't matter because your candidate can't possibly win. Votes that don't effect the outcome will be counted.
Brilliant.
Not too long ago, in most totalitarian countries, voting was a charade. The outcome was determined prior to any election. The election was merely a mask... a pretense at democracy. Those in power refused to share ideological space with others who believed in alternatives to the dictates of the regime. Certainly there may have been power struggles within the controlling party, but they were minor and there was no real deviance from party line between anyone in "the party".
And most importantly, there was no choice NOT to vote. You voted to affirm the rule... that was THE rule.
If you haven't noticed of late, the only real discernable difference, is that we in the US are subjected to a year of so of propaganda that is designed to make us believe that there is a difference between the rule of "The Party" in the US... and that of yesterday's totalitarian regimes.
It's all a lie.
The one difference that remains... the only difference... is that we can still refuse to vote. We can say NO to this sick side-show masquerade that The Party has made out of the democratic governance that once made this country great.
Don't believe me? Take one look at the mess we have made of this country in the last three decades. I am NOT a Democrat. I am NOT a Republican. I do not agree with your political philosophy... and it is *one* philosophy that you agree upon.
There is so little difference between the two it's worse than disgraceful... it's criminal. You both serve corporate masters. You act in tandem to prevent any challenge to that reality. You exclude all others from meaningful participation.
Don't point your finger at me. You are cowards and traitors to the people who installed you into power. Your greed has ruined this country and most of the world with it.
VOTE! It's the new US lie.
I will not validate you. I will opt for the only free choice that remains for me.
Oh yeah... an I WILL continue to fight your domination.
There's a reason why only half of eligible voters bother to vote in America and why we're ridiculed around the world for our lack of democratic participation. The "no difference" argument is a big part of that reason.
I look at it as more of a right to left continuum. On the far right we have the evangelical-neofascist authoritarian nut-jobs; and on the far left we have the anarchist- socialist. I will always vote for the candidate who has a the best chance of getting elected, who is the farthest from the right-wing fascist, no matter what party he or she is in.
If I thought Nader had a chance, I'd vote for him.
You think the government is totalitarian and voting is a farce and your response is to not vote?
Glad you didn't have a say at the Constitutional Convention.
If you think your vote counts; than the donkey/elephant show was a success!
It's main purpose is to keep us thinking that OUR VOTE COUNTS!
"Take one look at the mess we have made of this country in the last three decades."
So, by your argument, if no one had voted for the past thiry years then everything would be OK now?
q
your inability to reach logical conclusions is paramount in your posts.
No, actually, q made 'toast' of your argument.
I recognize can children
Why can't I have some, why, why why???
The answer is no.
Okay... just for you ctrl-duh... I will vote for Obama when the WTO schedules another meeting in Seattle. Think that will be any time soon?
Ooops. Burnt toast. Let's argue about it.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
I'll not vote for the candidate of their choice
but I'll vote for the candidate of MY choice.
It's not easy being Green but we must start somewhere.
So, while you third-party voters send your "message" to the democratic party, the McCain group gets "elected", attacks Iran and the Mideast explodes into full-fledge war---hundreds of thousands of dead, innocent, people filling mass graves. Sounds like a well thought out plan.
Do you think Al Gore would've taken us to war in Iraq? I don't. And that war alone has resulted in one million dead Iraqis who did nothing at all to deserve that fate.
Do you think Al Gore would've filled the courts with right-wingers? I don't. And look where our civil liberties are going.
Do you think Al Gore would stop all government regulation, and put industry cronies in charge of every government department? I don't. And look what's happened to the economy and the environment these last 8 years.
Do you think Al Gore would've been asleep while terrorists were known to be plotting to attack us here? I don't. And look what happened on 9-11; and all the crap that's stemmed from that---patriot act, guantanamo, rendition, torture...
This is not a question of political parties---it's a question of the PERSON who will lead this country. And I can't believe that any true progressive has any doubt that Obama will be a better leader than McCain.
And if you're voting for Nader or McKinney because you believe that they can really win, then your not looking at the reality of party politics in America today. There are 42 million registered democrats and 30-something million republicans---with huge organizations in each state, and tons of money. No third party candidate will come close. Even a BILLIONAIRE like Ross Perot was only able to get a few percentage points of the vote.
So, if you vote for a third party candidate, just try to realize that votes do have consequences beyond sending "messages". I respect anyone who votes their conscience. I just wonder how their conscience deals with the question of Iraq---not to mention all the other Bush disasters.
You forget that the US Supreme Court illegally gave the election to Mr. Bush. And that the Republicans cheated on the elections using electronic vote fraud.
So what are you so hysterical about currently free people expressing themselves?
madcow wrote: "Even a BILLIONAIRE like Ross Perot was only able to get a few percentage points of the vote."
1992 U.S. Presidential Election
18.8% is "only a few percentage points"? It's over half what the incumbent president received and 44% of what the winner had.
Besides, if you truly believe people should vote for the "person who will lead the country" and it's not a question of political parties, then how can you fault those who vote for the person of their choice (who may happen to be running as a third-party candidate) instead of the party of your choice? Third party voters likely delivered Bill Clinton both of his terms (he never secured an actual majority)-- was that a bad thing in your opinion?
I stand corrected on the "few percentage points". He had billions of dollars to get his 19%, and no third party candidate has that now.
And yes, I think that in retrospect it was a bad thing to have Clinton in there. His centrism and trianglulation did real harm to progressives, and to the democratic party.
And I shouldn't have said it's NOT a question of political parties---I meant that it's MORE THAN JUST a question of political parties.
Same thing that has been said over and over again... the thing you most desperately want to ignore... the thing that will never go away:
Democrats have enabled and have complicity engaged to validate Republicans at every step of the way during last eight years. Do you for one minute believe that CheneyOilCo could have pulled this crap off without the express direct assistance of the Democratic Party? To believe so is delusion.
To insist that I believe Democrats have been in real opposition, is wishful thinking on your part. Take your little slice of finger-pointing fear and do a 180 degree spin... then try looking at those Democrats who have insured that the reality we face today, evolved over the last eight years unchallenged.
Don't blame those of us who have the courage to stand up and say ENOUGH!
You demand compliant affirmation of your own crimes from those of us who do not want to be complicit. Screw "The Party". It's time to put an end to criminality designed by both Republicans and Democrats in concert.
YOU are the problem.
Toast
Excellent point. But unfortunately, the Democrats have been doing this for at least the last sixty years, if not earlier. This book is highly recommended as validation for what I have written.
http://www.amazon.com/Savage-Mules-Democrats-Endless-War/dp/1844672654
I don't revere or have faith in the democratic party. I realize that they have capitulated and that they're far too beholden to the corporations. But I don't think it's as simple as that either. Politics has and is playing a part in funding the war and impeachment. Politics, as in getting elected, keeping a majority in both houses, and increasing the size of that majority. I think the democratic party HAS put it's self-interest before the constitution. I think the party leaders believe that cutting off war funding or impeaching will result in their losing control of both houses.
What I don't believe is that we should hold Obama accountable for every mistake the democratic party has made.
This is the same party that has been high-jacked by conservative blue-dogs and Clinton- DLC types. Are we going to say that Obama is responsible for that?
Once again, we have someone trying to deflect responsibility for our current mess away from the republicans who have been the prime movers in its creation.
By your logic, if I walk into a crowded room and blow someone's brains out with a pistol, the killing isn't my fault. The blame lies with everyone else for failing to stop me.
q
And then why did the Democrats continue to buy you bullets, even after you had started killing people?
And why did the Democrats say that you would never be arrested for murder, because it would be a waste of everyone's time?
Why? Why?
Pervasive fear pumped up by color-coded neofascist. And fear of losing control of congress.
So let's blame all that on Obama!
Why did the Democrats provide you with the bullets?
You make your point about the candidates very well. I would offer a couple of observations.
First, Perot received almost 20% of the vote in '92. Why did he do so much better than third-party candidates can today? He had access to the mainstream media and was included in the debates.
Second, when discussing the value of a vote in the presidential election, one needs to remember that the states elect the president, not the people.
Yes, the Dems have the numbers over the republicans right now but the GOP knows that it can cut down that advantage with voter disenfranchisement, control of the mainstream media, and the voting machines.
q
"First, Perot received almost 20% of the vote in '92. Why did he do so much better than third-party candidates can today? He had access to the mainstream media and was included in the debate"
Yes, AND he had access to billions of dollars...
Well put.