Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiPalin + McCain Equals More Bush
WASHINGTON -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has awesome self-confidence. Chosen by fellow Republicans to be Sen. John McCain's running mate, she told an interviewer: "I'm ready." That confidence reflects her naivete about her role that puts her one heartbeat away from the presidency.
In accepting the nomination as veep, she invoked the greatness of President Truman, based on their small-town origins. But anyone who was around during Truman's era knows there is a world of difference between Palin and Truman. Take, for example, humility.
Truman was vice president for only a short time when on April 12, 1945, he was summoned to the White House and told the stunning news that President Franklin Roosevelt was dead. Truman and FDR were not close and Truman was not deeply familiar with the U.S. military plans for World War II. He also did not know about the atomic bomb.
As the nation's new leader, Truman wanted a few days to move into the White House. He understood the magnitude of his new job. The morning after being sworn in, Truman emerged from his Washington apartment to go to work on his first day as president. He took one look at the three wire service reporters who standing in front of his building.
"Boys," he said to the familiar faces, "the moon and the stars fell on me. If you ever prayed before, pray for me."
So when Palin says she is "ready," one thinks of the two U.S. wars under way in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and the devastating market crash on Wall Street.
There is no question that Palin has given a big lift to McCain and helped boost his ratings so that he's now virtually tied with Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee. As a team, McCain and Palin are on the same page. Both are pro-guns and anti-abortion. She is literally a rifle-toting mama, against sex education and has attempted to ban books she considers immoral from her hometown library.
But Palin's evangelical rigidity on social issues puts her out of step with the modern woman. She is said to be more reactionary than McCain -- if that's possible. Is it any wonder that activist feminist organizations have come out in support of Obama?
The new Republican ticket seems like the current White House tenant. Neither McCain nor Palin appear to have any significant doubts about President Bush's disastrous policies. Palin's gubernatorial tenure in Alaska is personified by massive firings when she took office. She does not tolerate dissent and shuns the media.
It seems clear to me that we would have another imperial presidency if McCain and Palin win the hearts and minds of the American people in the November balloting. Bob Woodward of The Washington Post has been privy to the workings of the Bush White House and has written four books to prove it. In his latest Book, "The War Within," Woodward depicts Bush as a "man of few doubts" who is "still following his gut, convinced that the path he has chosen is right."
Bush, who has switched from using the word "win" in speaking of Iraq to "succeed," has the gung ho McCain-Palin team behind him. The question is, why? Woodward also wrote that Bush was intolerant of confrontations and in-depth debate. He said Bush maintained an "odd detachment" in the management of the war in Iraq "and too often failed to lead."
Bush has never explained why he invaded Iraq -- a country that had no doomsday weapons and did us no harm. It's doubtful that McCain or Palin could explain Bush's mindless mission in the Middle East if they gained the White House.
79 Comments so far
Show AllAmerica is like an automobile at the end of it's life. The Republicans will blatantly go out to go out and steal the parts to fix it, they'll slap a new coat of paint on it, and drive it down roads that threaten everybody, and then they'll make the American taxpayers foot the bill for it all. The democrats won't steal the parts, unless they can get away with it without looking too bad, and nobody notices. They will however make the American taxpayers pay for the parts. They will also slap a new coat of paint on it, and make it look presentable, and they may drive it on some dangerous roads, as long as they think nobody is looking. Either way that old jalopy is rotting from the inside and will eventually fall apart. Maybe it's just time to buy a new car, the sooner it falls a part, perhaps, the better. The sooner we can have real change.
Helen Thomas rocks. Especially since she was on the Colbert Report once, that was a hilarious video :-)
hey
Ahh, now your intellect is up and running at full speed.
Inspiring, searingly intelligent.
does this work
No Gore and Bush are not alike. Gore would probably have been better. But that is a lesser-evilist argument that we "lefties" don't buy. A Lesser is still not good enough. The allowed political discourse in the US is narrow. Obama presents no challenge to the PTB (powers that be). Although I admit Obama is preferable to McCain, I still find him unacceptable.
He is a Democrat and Democrats have enabled the Republicans. I am sure you aware of separation of powers, check and balances and the power of the purse. Dems have abdicated their duties and this Democratically-led Congress may go down as the one of the worse of all time, certainly the polls show the lowest marks ever. If Dems were a genuine opposition party they would ended the war and impeached Bush. Enough said.
You win the argument about Obama being better than McCain but that isn't saying much. You lose the argument that Obama is a good progressive candidate.
Ric Abreu wrote: "...we "lefties"..."
That's rich.
How about: "We lefties who never do anything but attack Obama and the Democrats."
Or, "We lefties who would rather you stayed at home instead of voting for Obama."
Or, "We lefties who would prefer that McCain wins, that we outlaw abortion and attack Iran."
No Ric, I think your claim to be a "leftie" is something "we "lefties" " don't buy.
"We lefties who never do anything but attack Obama and the Democrats."
-how would you know what I do?
"We lefties who would rather you stayed at home instead of voting for Obama."
-I never said others should stay at home, I said I would rather not vote than vote for a sell out.
"We lefties who would prefer that McCain wins, that we outlaw abortion and attack Iran."
-There isn't a big difference between McCain and Obama's plan. Is Obama calling for scaling back militarism? Abortion would need to overturned in the SCOTUS it's not the president's decision.
How's Obama on reducing military spending? How is he on militarism? Get real, he sounds almost as hawkish as a Republican. I cite his saber rattling against Iran, Pakistan and even Russia and his speech before AIPAC.
1. A vote for Obama will not end the occupation.
2. Obama wants to increase military spending.
3. Obama's advisers want to keep Bush's Defense Secretary Roberts Gates.
4. Obama wants more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones.
5. Obama wants to add an additional 90,000 troops.
6. Obama wants to intensify the war in Afghanistan.
7. Obama wants to keep over 60,000 troops in Iraq to guard "our" oil.
Obama has been making a case he would be more efficient and ruthless than the Pugs and he wouldn't have gone into Iraq until he had finished off the Taliban in Afghanistan. Obama is no pacifist. He will surely cause the death of many thousands of innocent people and combatants alike for the sake of dominating a resource-rich region that doesn't belong to us - yet. The Taliban didn't attack us on 9/11. Twenty hijackers did. What was required was a police investigation and an attempt to apprehend those responsible not a war. The war is for oil.
The US is an empire. Empires survive through violently taking from less powerful nations the means to make wealth. Obama has applied for the position of Emperor. He needs to demonstrate that he is willing to shed blood in the furtherance of empire and hence his lurch to the right and his bellicosity. And he certainly sounds like he's ready:
Obama: “And so my job as the next commander in chief is going to be to make a decision what is the right war to fight, and, and how do we fight it?”
Obama: “We’re going to have to provide them with logistical support, intelligence support,” Obama continued. “We’re going to have to have a very capable counterterrorism strike force. We’re going to have to continue to train their Army and police to make them more effective.”
Obama:”Expand the Military: We have learned from Iraq that our military needs more men and women in uniform to reduce the strain on our active force. Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.”
Obama: “We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator in the Afghan border region…etc.
Go ahead and vote for Obama- I could care less.
I FIND IT LAUGHABLE THAT SOMEONE CALLING HIMSELF A LEFTY IS VOTING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT'S CHOICE - WALL STREET'S BARAK OBAMA WHO ADVOCATES FOR WAR IN AFGHANISTAN - ADDING 100,000 TROOPS AND VOTED TO CURTAIL OUR CIVIL RIGHTS AND PROTECT BUSH FOR BREAKING THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A lot of Obama supporters admit he isn't very progressive and deny he ever lurched to the right. They claim he has always been a centrist. Those hailing him as some kind of great progressive are fools. Others are in denial and some are just plain saps. Most of the rest are lesser-evilists. Which one are you?
Keep voting for Democrats and keep getting sold out. Those that do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it. And that's the truth!
President Palin thanks you for your service. The Ric Abreu identity has been compromised. Please assume another.
Again the establishment and the PTB thank you for yours. They also thank you for continuing to think in-the-box and supporting the status quo. Well done!
Or, how about "we lefties who would rather have lefties actually support lefty candidates instead of Republicans in sheep's clothing"
How about "We lefties who aren't really lefties at all but republicans in lefty clothing"?
"A Lesser is still not good enough."
This is biggest flaw in your argument. There will NEVER be a perfect candidate. ALL people who run for high office are flawed in some way. While you wait for your perfection----the world burns!
Nobody is asking for perfection!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All we are asking for is:
1) Stop the war/occupations
2) Impeach Bush or at least try
3) Don't step on our rights (FISA)
4) Don't bail out the rich (banking institutions) while the poor lose their homes
Now is that really too much to be asking for? It is apparently too much to ask of Democrats isn't it?
No. it's not too much to ask for.
1. An anti-war candidate will NOT get elected in todays America. I think it's good that Obama is at least promising to end one of the two wars that the shrub led us into.
2. Yes, this would be nice---though removing him from office would be impossible given you need a 3/4 vote in the senate. A far better plan would be to prosecute AFTER the justice dept. is run by someone other than right-wingers. Also, the fact that the democratic party is infiltrated by blue-dog conservatives and DLC types who vote with the R's on many issues, makes impeachment very difficult.
3. I don't know the whole story about why Obama capitulated on the FISA immunity question. This was enough for me to stop volunteering and giving him money. But it's not enough to lose my vote.
4. Yes! At the very least insist on helping the poor keep their homes.
There's no way you can blame Obama for all the mistakes that the democrats have made. I think we have the tendency to get too wrapped up in PARTY politics in America. I try to look beyond the "D. and R." frame at who is the most left-wing, viable candidate.
madcow 1. An anti-war candidate will NOT get elected in todays America. I think it's good that Obama is at least promising to end one of the two wars that the shrub led us into.
-not true.
From Obama's website: Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.
-how many troops stay to "conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel" he doesn't say, some estimate many 10s of thousands.
Bullcrap, the troops stay, he shifts some to Afghanistan and "permanent" means they don't last forever, for that matter not even the Sun is permanent. Weasel words.
madcow 2. Yes, this would be nice---though removing him from office would be impossible given you need a 3/4 vote
-not true. The impeachment-trial procedure is in two steps. The House of Representatives must first pass "articles of impeachment" by a SIMPLE MAJORITY. The cowardly Dems have given up before even trying. They have a SIMPLE MAJORITY and could at least try. They don't because they don't want to be embarrassed by the fact many Dems will vote against it.
madcow 3. I don't know the whole story about why Obama capitulated on the FISA immunity question. This was enough for me to stop volunteering and giving him money. But it's not enough to lose my vote.
-the whole story is that he promised to filibuster and went back on his word and voted for it, it's that simple
madcow 4. Yes! At the very least insist on helping the poor keep their homes.
-Obama is not on the record as being opposed to welfare for the rich (bailouts) and insisting homeowners not lose their homes
1. An anti-war candidate will not get elected---period! And we don't know how many troops will be left behind.
2. It's a waste because he will still be in office. He won't get voted out. Do you remember how for 6 years under republican control there was absolutely NO hearings or Oversight by congress AT ALL? When the Democrats got in and they had hearing after hearing and documented it all. They got no cooperation from a stone-walled whitehouse. Do you think impeachment would be any different. The whitehouse destroys evidence and ignores orders to appear. The justice dept. won't prosecute.
3. It's not the whole story. There's the question as to why. You can speculate, but that's all it is.
4. We don't know what his plan is.
Look man, I'm not here to defend the democrats. I think the party is screwed up. Like I said, I try to look beyond labels and pick the MOST LEFT of the viable candidates.
Okay cool, but you're doing a pretty good job. Vote for whomever you want, no problem.
You're right! When you say you must be pro-war to get elected I agree. In other words, even though Obama once challenged the war he understands that in order to get elected he must support it and the MIC. Not because the people want war, but because the PTB insist on it.
In other words to be considered respectable and electable you must basically sell out and adopt Republican positions. If you don't you won't be considered respectable and will be shunned by the media as is the case of McKinney, Nader, Gravel, socialists and even Ron Paul. Anyone challenging the status quo meets the same fate. That's why the best defense Dems have to protect themselves from Republican attacks is to become more like them.
So in essence we have one political party with two wings. The policies are set by the oligarchs and the Repugs and Dems just carry out the policies if they want to be elected. Sound right?
I think that's a bit simplistic, but basically correct. If they want to be elected, they must not seem overly pacifistic, and must be seen as willing to protect the PTB with all the military prowess available---yes.
The D's, however, to not have to sell out on social issues, economics, or the environment. I think they win most arguments on those fronts. And here there's more leeway from the PTB. So your one party argument breaks down here.
What they do once in there is a whole nother story.
Thanks for being so honest madcow. I get where you are coming from.
Oh dear, let's see. Though they may not HAVE to sell out on social, economic and environmental issues, it appears that they have.
- Welfare "reform", DOMA, corporate bailouts, offshore drilling, healthcare, "free trade" etc.etc., ad nauseum.
If you are only willing to vote to vote for a candidate that passes muster with the PTB, our future is gloomy indeed; that's how we got where we are - allowing the PTB to define the parameters of the debate
Yes, Aquifer, the democratic party is not as left as I would like either. However, it's far better than the neofascist republicans. Is there some other party out there----or a candidate who might get elected in less then two months who's better than Obama? Let me know will you...
Yes, lesser-evilism keeps lurching us to the right to the point "lefties" vote for Wall Street-sponsored imperialist warmongers that pose as progressives long enough to secure the nomination and then unfurl their true colors. Gotta do what you gotta do, right?
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.
Yes, you do gotta do what you gotta do. But again---we're back where we started here---I don't believe Obama's evil for working within an evil system. I haven't seen any "evil" in the man.
Maybe if we concentrate on electing candidates who are "more good" instead of "lesser evil" we'd start lurching to the left.
Ric: Do you see any benefit to working for Greens and progressive causes and candidates in the next four years under McCain as opposed to Obama?
It seems to me we'd be best to swear in Obama, scrape the GOP *#@% right off our shoes,
Then work these next years to build an electable party on ever greater levels.
To throw McCain the election for any principle I believe is trumped by the moral pragmatism of ridding ourselves of the party that destroyed this country.
Yes with help, but they have certainly led the way, led us down paths of darkness no Democrat had found.
Let's stop the nightmare, then work for change within this new context, imperfect though it will be.
translucent: To throw McCain the election for any principle I believe is trumped by the moral pragmatism of ridding ourselves of the party that destroyed this country.
-destroyed it while the party you are advocating for sat by and did nothing and let them get away with it. I'm fine with people voting for Obama. That's your right. For myself, I'd rather not vote than vote for traitors and sell outs. We know where we each stand so we don't have to rehash our positions over every thread ad nauseam.
I hate the Democratic Party almost as much as I despise the Republicans. On every thread related to Dems I will be pointing out the truth about the Dems and Obama (which will come across as a bashing to you). Those that don't like it can try and refute my facts, but I would advise not wasting your time trying to convince me to vote for Republican -lite based on lesser-evilism. Don't waste your time friend.
Cool?
ps I live in CA, a vote for Greens doesn't sway it to McCain.
It is nice to disagree intelligently on CD. You separate your hate for Democrats from how you feel about others on CD nicely.
Could you give online seminars here? Please?
And I get to pick who listens.
You say you live in California, as though there were another state, that's funny.
NorCal.
All the folks who think there would be 'no difference' between an Obama Presidentcy & McSame-Palin consider if Gore was leaving office right now after 8years (instead of the election being stolen)
1) There would be 2 million less Iraq refugees, tens of thousands less dead(including 4,000 US soldiers/25,000 maimed for life)
2) 8 yrs of action towards Climate Change Legislation
3) More money in Treasury for Health Care, two less right-wing SC Justices, no Patriot Act, no corporate testing in schools, possibly real finance reform legislation,etc...
I have problems with Obama's corporate coziness & his 'strong military' crap(do you think he would get elected saying he would cut the military budget?) BUT his world outlook is vastly different than 'fighter pilot'McCain. Seriously, which candidate do you think would start the next WAR?..
Give me a break on Nader! Which party is he in this year?...If anything vote Green as a radical progressive or a progressive can intelligently vote Obama in a 'toss-up' state & support Greens at the local level...
You seem to forget that Gore was part of an administration that enforced almost 10 years of criminal sanctions against Iraq, resulting in the deaths of (at least) half a million Iraqi children, about which his Sec. of State (Albright) said "We think the price is worth it", whose administration signed on to the concept of "regime change".
And during Gore's 8 year tenure, what, precisely, did he do or even promote in terms of global warming. He was too busy, it seems, "reinventing gov't."
This mantra about what Gore would have done is sheer speculation and based more on wishful thinking than any extrapolation of what he actually DID do when he was VP.
Obama is a (Bill) Clinton clone. I voted for those guys in '92, then, post NAFTA, I switched to Nader and have had no good reason to look back since. Your version of an imagined Gore pres., in my opinion, is pretty much made out of whole (hole?) cloth.
As for which candidate would start the next war, when Obama says he would invade Pakistani territory, with or without their permission, if he had "actionable intelligence" (where have I heard that phrase before?), I am not terribly reassured on that score.
As for "parties", I don't much care for them myself. Doesn't matter to me what "party" you're in, it's what you stand for, and Obama's "corporate coziness & his 'strong military' crap", as you put it so well, tell me pretty much what I need to know.
Seriously, which candidate do you think would start the next WAR?..
-Obama has indicated he wants to intensify the war/occupation in Afghanistan not end it. Do your homework!
Ric:
1. Palin McCain's rhetoric re Russia has been bellicose, not Obama's, one of McCain's men was there and HELPED START the Georgian conflict. He's helped start a war and fiasco b4 the election even transpires....
2. MCain wants to isolate Iran, Obama engage Iran.
3. Obama wants to pull troops out of Iraq, McCain said he would stay there for one thousand years or until Victory is achieved.
Yes Afghanistan is wrong, and there they are alike, but not alike as described above; and Ric-war with Russia? Again, 'John's' presence there has already been felt, how did that go? A fiasco.
The preceeding examples of McCain's greater foreign policy aggressiveness are clear-cut.
And they mark PalinMcCain the by far more war-like ticket.
Do YOUR homework!
Seriously, Gore and Bush are the same huh? That is beyond all reason to keep it polite, which in spite of the homework crack you are doing,
Cool.
You have absolutely no idea about what a Gore Presidency would or would not have done unless you own a crystal ball. What did he do as vice president? To ask that question answers it.
When he was VP he sat idly by while we regularly bombed and starved Iraqis. Clinton tore up the safety net and gave us the anti-terrorism bill, after the Oklahoma City federal building bombing, that became the precursor to the Patriot Act.
By the way, Obama voted for the Patriot Act.
WAKEUPCALL: It's shocking. I've tried. Obama haters on these threads will shamelessly argue that Gore would have been no better than Bush and Cheney have been.
Nobel Prize winner or The worst president in history and war criminal....hmmmmm..sure they are the same. And so are Obama and McCain. Yeah. right.
It's useless. Let them rant. I detail Nader's investments in defense contractors like Raytheon* and they say nothing. Sure, that is okay because he is their idol. Raytheon=cluster bombs-go ralph. Ralph is invested in Halliburton too!*
*Via his Fidelity Magellan Holdings.
Obama or McCain,
They're not the same,
Try world war three
And the cold war game.
Until recently most of Obama's investments was tied up with conservative mutual funds. Obama also has stock with Skyterra Communications and AVI Biopharma, both happen to get a lot of money from a source Obama should be familiar with: the federal government.
Skyterra Communications and AVI Biopharma, aside from sharing the same deep-pocketed benefactor, the two have one more thing in common. They both provide services in an area that has become a hot-button issue on Capitol Hill and with the electorate: homeland security.
Are you ok with Obama's homeland security investments but not ok with Ralph's having Raytheon stock? Was there a conflict of interest there for Obama?
Better to vote for what you want and not get it, than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
Go CYNTHIA MCKINNEY! GO GREENS! DON"T WASTE YOUR VOTE ON SELL OUTS!
I LOVE how you dismiss Nader's holdings in Raytheon and cluster bombs as a LesserEvil!
Lesser than what?
Nothing is more evil than cluster bombs-sorry.
Look I am not voting for Nader. Get it? Nader is not a saint. Neither is Obama. Nader is not the establishments choice, Obama is. Now that ought to tell you something, but it won't. He had or has a holding in a firm that in turn either had or has Raytheon stock. It is my understanding he didn't directly own it.
Do you know for a fact he still has it? Can you provide the evidence? I love the way you dismiss Obama having stock with companies that do business with the federal government.
You hate Nader because he has/had stock in the MIC but probably are unaware of Obama's stocks and bonds plus you seem aware Obama is calling for more military spending on top of the fact we already spend more on "defense" than the rest of the world combined.
In addition, military overspending starves domestic programs that help people. Why is it okay for Obama to call for increasing military spending but you bash Nader for his stocks?
Tit for Tat.
Another DPA staple argument, #7 the "HOW ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT?" How about the vote on Chief Justice Roberts?
All 55 Republicans voted to confirm Roberts; 22 Democrats, including Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Patrick Leahy of Vermont, also voted to confirm Roberts, as did the one independent (Jim Jeffords). 22 Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, voted in opposition.
22 Democrats voted to confirm Bush's Supreme Court Chief Justice.
The "HOW ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT?" argument is a staple DPA red herring because enough Democrats always vote with the Republicans to allow the confirmation of right wingers, but don't count on Republicans to return the favor. Unlike Democrats, Republicans don't betray their base.
George Bush said, "You're either with us or with the enemy!" Christian fundamentalists, Muslim fundamentalists, fundamentalists of all kinds see the world in black and white like Bush. Progressive fundamentalists are no different. I have lots of differences with Obama and Biden, but that doesn't mean they're the same as McCain and Palin. McCain will appoint right wing idealogues to the Supreme Court. That will lock us in for decades! McCain and Palin will destroy our civil liberties and the last vestiges of the constitution. Obama and Biden, both professors of constitutional law, will not. Yes, my views are closer to those of Nader and McKinney, but a vote for either of them is at least half a vote for McCain-Palin. Sorry, No Thanks. Doc
If your views are closer to Nader and Mckinney, how do you ever hope to get those views realized by voting against them? If you do agree with them, but vote otherwise, then you are siphoning off votes for them, you are undermining their candidacy and, hence, your own principles.
Or, if voting for them is half a vote for McCain, is voting McCain half a vote for Nader/McKinney? Interesting concept. In my calculation, voting for Obama is half a vote for McCain, as the 2 parties are so similar in what they owe their allegiance to (and it ain't the Constitution).
Remember that Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts are, supposedly, experts in Con. Law as well. Would you vote for them to protect your civil liberties? There are a number of people who are Con. Law profs that I certainly would not want to see as Pres., and Obama is one of them. What makes you think that a guy who voted for a bill that gives telecoms immunity from prosecution would appoint a SC justice who would deem that law unconstitutional?
What a stupid article. Sorry. Everybody knows Palen is a political cipher and so is the current occupant of the White House, the one Dems are protecting.
Bush has never explained why he invaded Iraq -- a country that had no doomsday weapons and did us no harm. It's doubtful that McCain or Palin could explain Bush's mindless mission in the Middle East if they gained the White House.
-this is a really stupid thing to say in support of the Obama/Biden ticket. One advocated for it, both voted to fund it.
Helen Thomas is a DPA (Dem Party apologist). She doesn't end with the typical DPA "Therefore vote for Obama!" but it's implied. George Bush was about as qualified as Palin and he managed just great with Democratic assistance. And when he really started screwing up and breaking laws the Democrats were quick to grant him retroactive immunity and declare impeachment is off the table.
Palin could be president because the president isn't the one running the oligarchy. He or she is just a gloried water boy doing the bidding and business of the PTB (powers that be).
It won't really matter which of the two establishment parties has control of the government because the policies are designed by the industries that they are supposed to be regulating. Hence it won't really matter that much whether we get a Black Republican or a White one, the corrupt banking industry will be bailed out at taxpayer expense, the little guy will lose his home and the wars will continue,
On the Democratic side we get Biden, the consummate insider of 35 years who has been sitting there all this time while everything got deregulated and said what? What he did say is that he was in favor of the war in Iraq and voted for it. Maybe that's why Obama picked him; to shore up his "military" credentials.
Go Greens! Go Nader! Go any 3rd party that is opposed to war, for people and against corporate and government corruption!
When they tell you there's no real choice but McCain or Obama, remember this: they're lying.
When you get to the ballot box, you'll see Nader right there between McCain and Obama in 45 states. When you get to the ballot in 32 states, you'll see Cynthia McKinney. Both have worked tirelessly their whole lives for the Constitution and the People. Both have spoken out against reckless financial deals that now threaten the retirement funds and livelihoods of millions of Americans. Both have spoken out against the occupation of Iraq and for impeachment of Bush-Cheney.
How much longer must your conscience wait?
John M. Wages, Jr.
Candidate, US House of Representatives, MS-01
www.VoteJohnWages.com
42 million registered democrats and 30 something million registered republicans---huge organizations in every state---tons of money...
Good luck.
Both Nader and McKinney have zero chance of winning.
So which viable candidates are you siphoning votes from?
The Repugs have had the Dim Wits bent over a table for years without so much as a whimper or a peep of complaint. Just mention Nader and the nut cases come out in force, foaming and frothing at the mouth like rabid dogs. Perhaps if you Democrats were actually an opposition party and not an accomplice maybe we wouldn't need third parties. If you opposed Repugs with the same ferocity you oppose Ralph you'd have my vote. You don't own the political process nor do you own our votes. Votes must be earned. They are not an entitlement program. Earn it!
Helen Thomas observes that Sarah Palin's "evangelical rigidity puts her out of step with the with modern woman. She is said to be more reactionary than McCain - if that's possible. Is it any wonder that activist feminist organizations have come out in favor of Obama?" No wonder at all, and this week's developments on that front of the culture wars is wonderful.
Sarah Palin is to the American womens' movement what Clarence Thomas and Ward Connerly are to the civil rights movement for the rights of African-Americans. As a member of a new neo-con front group calling itself Feminists for Life, Ms. Palin would substitute abstinence only lectures for meaningful sex education on contraception. On ideological and religious grounds, she opposes the choice of abortion even for victims of forcible rape and incest, while this newfangled "feminist" front group openly lobbies to nullify Roe v Wade. By coopting some of the rhetoric, the GOP's right wing is trying to redefine (in the image of Phyllis Schlafly) what it means to be a "liberated" woman in the neo-cons' brave new world
Yes, Helen, this sure is out of step.
Trying to read Margaret Sanger out of the history of the womens' rights movement in the United States is rather like claiming to be a big supporter of equal rights for blacks - but just please don't mention that Frederick Douglass fellow. As the media hype and celebrity sizzle of the Palin veep choice subsides, the substance inside is gradually being exposed as the proverbial wolf in sheeps' clothing that this cynical ticket balancing stunt has always been.
As a male who once marched in the streets of Chicago and Philadelphia in support of passage of the Equal Rights Amendment (thanks for the sharp stick in the eye, Henry Hyde), I say take a deep breath, and put your trust in the good common sense of real world women voters to see past the GOP's preposterous smoke and mirrors marketing effort come election day.
When all is said and done, this slickly packaged snake oil is not going to sell within its designated target demographic group.
Bill from Saginaw
Religion is out of step with modern women !
Palin apparently exemplifies Republican feminism. She can have a career, but her genitalia still belongs to men. There's not much we can do about it, she's archaic and the Republicans are archaic, so they are well matched.
Helen, Helen, Helen!!
Whatever happened to "girl power"!!
Yes she's had no experience of anything much - as mayor she appointed a city manager to take care of things and left the city in debt.
And yes, as governor she seems to have spent most of her time harrassing an ex-brother-in-law - or encouraging family members and staff to do the same.
And yes she's "mispoken" about the bridge to nowhere, earmarks, being in iraq, being in ireland and running the national guard,etc.
But so what. She's a "heck of a gal" - and a hockey mom !
And if you think she can't figure out foreign policy, just look at how quickly she mastered "executive priviledge".
Is McCain Palin's Bitch?
A group of black protesters holding signs reading "Blacks Against Obama" disrupted Obama's speech in Coral Gables but were drowned out by the crowd's chants of "yes we can."
They were led out by police after a brief interruption.
Dont Conelessa Rice, Colin Powel, and Clarence Thomas have anything better to do with their time?
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
LOL. Seriously.
I respect Helen Thomas tremendously (I watched the documentary on her life just this week). I hate to even think of the White House press corp without her.
But, this is no time to be placing trust in either Obama or McCain.
We are in serious, very serious trouble.
We need honest and predictable leadership, not more of the same.
As a nation, we are doomed without taking a real, honest step to clean this mess up.
Vote like your country and life depended on it.
THIS time, it really does.
Vote for Nader.
Ummmm.... So how is voting for Nader going to lead to honest and predictable leadership?
As much chance as an Obama administration will.
Your party's record clearly speaks for itself.
700 billion $ bailout and an illegal war that's murdering innocent human beings.
Personally, I have no other choice as I can't be complicit in the matter(s) at hand.
Don't even worry about about. There are far too many lesser-evilists out there to worry about any 3rd party candidate. Just look at their platforms if you want to know who are the real progressives and who are the posers that are actually Republican-lites. One thing is for sure:
1. A vote for Obama will not end the occupation.
2. Obama wants to increase military spending.
3. Obama's advisers want to keep Bush's Defense Secretary Roberts Gates.
4. Obama wants more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones.
5. Obama wants to add an additional 100,000 troops.
6. Obama wants to intensify the war in Afghanistan.
7. Obama wants to keep over 60,000 troops in Iraq to guard "our" oil.
So if you are for war, imperialism and socialism for the rich vote for Democrats or Republicans! You won't be disappointed!
It isn't that you're too dense to answer a simple question, it's just you don't want to give an answer that would undermine your argument.
I am not voting for Nader you brick.
I am voting Green. If not, I would vote for the Socialist Equality Party or lastly, Ralph Nader.
Anyone not taking large sums of money from Wall St. and opposed to our continued military presence in the ME in order to enrich the MIC, Big Oil, Haliburton, Blackwater and a host of other vultures would be infinitely better than the sold out accomplices and protectors of the Bush Criminal Family, the Democrats.
The rationale is that Democrats:
1) Refuse to stop funding the war after promising to do so
2) Refuse to impeach Bush/Cheny
3) Refuse to hold Bush accountable for torturing
4) Allow right-wingers like Mukasey and others to be confirmed
5) Confirmed right-wingers on the Supreme Court
6) Rubber stamp gargantuan military budgets
7) Allow Bush to spew 935 lies about the war and get away with it
8) Allow Cheny to out CIA agents and defy subpoenas
9) Granted Bush and the Telecoms immunity
10)Allow Guantanamo to stay open so they can torture outside US jurisdiction.
11)Allow themselves to be pissed on by signing statements
12)Insert your favorite Democratic Party capitulation here:_____________________________________. (offshore drilling?)
So for anyone not as thick as you and the other DPAs on CD it would be obvious that the Democrats are only marginally better than Republicans, if that. Therefore the Dims should be dumped and we should be voting for third parties in the hopes they can get 5% and qualify for matching funds.
Yeah, the Green Candidate will win the election, stop the war, put reasonable justices on the Supreme Court, end government sanctioned torture, restore civil liberties, get the church out of the state (and vice versa) and protect a woman's right to an abortion.
Not.
You trolls really don't have a leg to stand on. Your whole argument is "The Dem's didn't do enough against Bush & Co. so vote for people who can do nothing because they have no chance of winning."
You're trolling for the gullible and not getting many bites.
It's kind of funny to see the lefties on pro-Nader CD scream and holler about Palin's lack of qualifications.
Nader's done what again? Oh that's right he exposed the Corvair. Wow! Good enough for me. Sign him up to lead the world.
I find it sad that you betray an incredible ignorance on the subject yet are unashamed to profess that ignorance. Five freaking minutes with a reputable search engine, a perusal of the bio of Ralph Nader would have saved you from the opinion that you are an acne scarred teenager desperate to be heard, and too ignorant to have anything of value to say.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Between the Red and the Blue candidates is a Green candidate.
Sioux Rose
FAL 2 GAL: Your name seems new to the forum. Your description of this sort of person fits, and is the culmination of generations of pro-nationalistic programming, now fueled by similar indoctrinations into false team loyalties that emerge from our intense sports-media complex. Religion uses stylistic programming from both in demanding loyalty from its flock (the evangelical sorts of religion, anyway); and thus those who BELONG to the "WINNING" team feel no onus to question anything. Their certainty that they are the new Chosen will become quite the disappointment when they cross over and the REAL Jesus, or perhaps Buddha, will interview them and ask, "What did you think I meant by whatsoever you do unto the least of these?" If anyone dares answer "BOMB," they get to live in the next zone on this planet or another, absolutely in line for violent destruction.
Unless empathy is cultivated, most need to wear someone else's moccassins to get it. This is why we heard the quote, "Judge not that ye not be judged." I've seen that from the days of my youth, certain situations I was judgmental towards BECAME my own until I began to see the connection between things, and really FEEL for mankind as a FAMILY. No one can evolve, "the only way to the Father is through me," to this higher spiritual consciousness without developing spiritual sensitivity. Using Jesus' name the way some deluded elderly woman clings to her Rosary beads cuts nothing in the way of soul evolution, and the karmic residue that precedes it.
Sioux Rose
Examining Bush and his purported motives is rather like looking at a pile of cow dung and from it seeking to divine the future. Helen Thomas quotes those sources that actually place into LEGITIMATE question anything this under-informed, slow thinker PLACED into the # 1 (presidential) slot essentially to open the floodgates for the biggest heists of modern history supposedly conceived. He does not think, there IS no thought process with Bush, neither any capacity to FEEL. He is the figurehead of those that have no conscience and are to money what the addict is to heroin.
GUS: There are some Americans that indeed fit your description, but a good % would probably be willing to alter their ways if the media didn't place into question (like a corrupt defense attorney representing a mass murderer for instance) EVERY dangerous trend currently underway. The climate of dis-information means few know WHAT to believe in. Even in this forum of mostly educated thinking sorts, there are some who buy into some very strange BS.
Hellen says that Mcsame pain would be like more bush. Well what's wrong with that? Oh, yah, I suppose there are one or two - thousand - reasons why that wouldnt' be good...
She told an interviewer: "I'm ready."
She must have misheard the interviewer. The interviewer was not talking about bedtime.
Bush/Cheney and McCain/Palin are depicted as evil, and pursusing an insane agenda. I agree. But have you thought the deep-seated reasons they do what they do? The wars, the deception, etc.?
It's because deep down, the electorate is averse to change, and asking the American people to reduce energy consumption, to change their consumption to reduce their ecological footprint, and to make other changes is ELECTORAL SUICIDE. Look what happened to Jimmy Carter when he attempted to ask for modest reductions in energy consumption. He's derided as one of the worst presidents in American history, although I think of him as being the best in the last 40 or 50 years. Contrast that with the perception of Reagan. Yes, WE KNOW that Reagan was a doddering figurehead for a deceptive, cheating conservative movement. But he regarded energy problems as an inadequate supply, and worked to keep the status quo going. He's celebrated as a hero, although his policies, then and now, are a DISASTER.
Moral of the story: you can blame the politicians, but they're smart enough to not offend the electorate any more than they need to in order to get elected. Americans don't want to inconvenience themselves with reduced energy, food, and materials consumption. Asking them to do so is political suicide. I think Bush/Cheney are wildly successful, but also hate their values, policies, and philosophy. Without making the electorate willing to make reductions in energy and other consumption, we won't change the strategy of the politicians.
Bush explained why he was going to war in Iraq before he was ever president. He told a friend that to be remembered as a great president you had to be a war president. Of course for that, you have to have a war. Iraq fit the bill because then he could show up Daddy at the same time. Lucky us.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
If the American people fall for it again then, sorry, fooled thrice. Americans will just have to live with the further deterioration of their country and world. It's sad, but Americans did it to Americans through deceit. Every "point" that McCain/Palin make ease America that much closer to a fully faded glory. Without morality a country is nothing.
Education is supposed to be the path from cocky ignorance to thoughtful uncertainty.
Palin's cockiness and "not blinking" when asked to be the VP candidate is yet another proof of how education is completely wasted on people like her and Dubya. No doubts, no curiosity, no analytical ability, no thoughtfulness, no thoughts. Just Christian-God-given righteousness and arrogance.
I am an immigrant living and working in Texas amongst college educated Christians. Their "faith-based" knowledge frightens me.
Fal2Gal, "faith-based" belief scares me too, but I think education is not "wasted" on anyone. How to make people understand other people's points of view? I don't know. It's up to us to give every child an education, and keep educating the public via real news coverage about real policies and hope the fundamentalists aren't solidly "locked in", or get control long range.
Palin's run for VP is no more naive than Dumbya's run for President. The puppeteers are in charge.
Can we all celebrate Helen Thomas for her great work, which is a delight to read and all she has done so far. Who of us could challenge the presidents at press conferences as she has done? The lady in red.... Celebrate Helen Thomas. Thanks, Helen Thomas.
I would add my voice to the chorus in praise of one of the very few real journalists left in this nation.....and note as well that a Palin Presidency terrifies me, while a McCain or Obama victory only disgusts me.....
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
She's one of the last real journalists in America. Amy Goodman is another one of that breed.
I am slightly dyslexic, and I keep seeing Nail McPain.
She recently put herself in front of him anyway.
Love
Zero
Is McCain Palin's Bitch?
"Bush has never explained why he invaded Iraq -- a country that had no doomsday weapons and did us no harm. It's doubtful that McCain or Palin could explain Bush's mindless mission in the Middle East if they gained the White House."
To quote the Blues Brothers" "We're on a mission from Gawd"
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
"...never explained..." - that's the line that stimulated a return to my sputtering, which yes, I'am using professional help on, however, if Palin or anyone of even semi reasonable mind where to give a clear explanation of the Iraq Occupation they would make a wonderful Prez or VP..."Bomb, bomb, bomb...bomb, bomb, Iran...we're in a 100 year oil mission from Gawd" does not come from a reasonable mind - they have slight intellect if any, four more years of canned press conferences of "drill, drill, drill...I shoot moose's...wave flag...ha, ha, ha" is unconscionable!
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=n3ecA2L-VuQ
McCain = BIG OIL