Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
A Brief Guide to the Debates
In the first debate, Obama did what he needed to do: convince a majority that he has what it takes. But there is room for improvement.
1. Obama kept working within McCain's frames: Earmarks, tax policy, military policy as foreign policy, and so on. McCain would say something false using one of his frames, and Obama would be lured into correcting McCain in McCain's own frame and then stay in it. Rule 1: Change to your frame.
2. A simple thing: Instead of saying "I agree with Sen. McCain ...", Obama should try "Sen. McCain agrees with me that ... " The former frames McCain as setting the standard. The latter frames Obama as setting the standard. Or try " Sen. McCain and I agree" if you are stressing bipartisanship.
3. Obama's answers kept drifting off and falling in intonation at the end. Both beginnings and endings should be short and passionate.
4. Obama missed a great opportunity when McCain said he would freeze nonmilitary spending. A short, but powerful list of what would be cut and how it would affect people's lives could have been devastation. This can still be done however, even by Biden on Thursday.
5. McCain used "no second holocaust" to effect last week in courting the Jewish vote, which could be decisive in Florida. Obama and Biden need to use it, while pointing to Olmert's anti-bombing position along with Olmert's reasons.
6. Obama didn't take the opportunity to talk about foreign policy at the level of the person, not the state-about foreign policy issues like poverty, hunger, disease, clean water, women's oppression, ethnic cleansing, refugees, global economics, and so on. Military experience doesn't help with these vital issues, and McCain is inexperienced in them.
The reason the list is short is that Obama did so well.
The Democrats are assuming that Biden will win easily over Palin. I hope so, but Palin should not be underestimated. She is being tutored and much of what she will do should be obvious. She will attack Obama viciously, but with humor. I think she will come out as a populist identifying Obama and Biden with Wall Street and say that McCain improved the Paulson bill by going to Washington. She may argue that a corporate income tax cut will put money in the economy. That one's easy to rebut: corporations that need bailouts have losses not incomes and so cutting their taxes would be pointless. But such logical arguments won't carry the day with Conservative Populists. Biden will have to come on at the beginning as a populist attacking the need for such a bailout. Remember that polls among conservative populists are running more than 100-to-1 against. Also remember that conservative populists see liberals as elitists, and will see Biden negatively if he comes on as a policy wonk trying to upstage Palin on her ignorance about issues. Biden needs to be short, to the point, passionate, and should not forget the Big 5 reasons people vote for a presidential candidate: Values, Authenticity, Communication and Connection, Trust, and Identity. He has to undercut McCain on these, and support himself and Obama on them.
Again, look for the obvious from Palin: She will repeat "That's gotcha journalism" when asked embarrassing questions. She and McCain are the populist reformers fighting Wall street, indentifying Obama and Biden with Wall Street, and touting no taxpayer bailout, private insurance, cutting corporate taxes, cutting spending, the defense of Georgia from the Russians, and drilling to lower energy costs. She will drop the names of the leaders she met in NY at the UN. She will call Obama too liberal and an orator with no content. She will bring back Reverend Wright and Bill Ayres. She will talk about being pro-life and saving the family and the Second Amendment.
Biden will have to practice not falling into any of these frames, but responding (or if possible starting) with framing of his own that casts McCain in a bad light in all these cases and draws her into his framing. I assume those prepping him for the debate will have already told him all of this.
Biden should go after McCain. He should call him a Yes-man for Bush 90 percent of the time, especially on deregulation of Wall Street (which caused this economic crisis), on refusing to fund alternative energy, on starting the Iraq War and not going after Osama bin Laden, and on privatizing-and eventually ending-social security. A debate on whether McCain is Yes-Man will displace the maverick frame from public discourse.
Biden should go after McCain's gambling, and point out his gamble last week, which resulted in his messing up the bill to fix the economic crisis. In a crisis, you need a cool head, not an impulsive gambler. There should be a public discussion about McCain as a gambler.
Biden should not let McCain get away with his remark about freezing all spending except for the military and veterans. He should look at the audience and say, if you have a child who has or needs college loans, Sen. McCain will take them away. If your schools get federal funding for education, say for special needs, Sen McCain will eliminate it. If your town gets ......(fill in your favorites) , Sen. McCain will cut it - and give your money instead via tax breaks to wealthy people and corporations who don't need it.
Biden should also go into the nonmilitary aspects of foreign policy, especially those at the level of the person: poverty, hunger, disease, water, ethnic cleansing, women's oppression, and so on. McCain has no experience working on such people-oriented issues, where military experience doesn't count.
Biden should criticize Palin for making women who've been raped pay for their own rape tests, on not being pro-life after birth because of her views of children's health care, on helping to raise the rate of teenage pregnancies and hence abortions by being against sex education, and on helping to bring back back-alley abortionists by supporting laws that would have the government interfere with the intimate decisions that only individual women should be making. Lack of sex education, lack of pre-and post-natal care, and bringing on the return of back-alley abortionists supports a culture of death, not life.
This is the opportunity to bring up Palin's Road to Nowhere, built from earmark funds, and going nowhere, routed through a nature preserve-a place that shouldn't even have roads.
Biden doesn't have to prove himself in this debate. Palin does have to prove herself. That means Biden can hold back, give short but powerful responses, and try to prevent gaffes.
Finally, there is "gotcha journalism." If Palin brings it up, the right response is that journalists have a job to do, to find out what candidates know and believe, and that experienced candidates know how to respond by communicating clearly what they really do know and do believe.
- Posted in
76 Comments so far
Show AllI hope someone from the Obama campaign reads this. Because it sure seems like every statement the Repubs make towards Dems nowadays boils down to "Have you stopped beating your wife yet". And each time the Dems respond "Yes". The notion of Frames is really so simple...why can't Dems figure this out?
You've got to be kidding! "He did so well!" What planet does this man live on? He was abysmal and presented so many reasons NOT to vote for him!
progressiveparty [October 1st, 2008 1:03 pm], ha, ha, you finally seem to be coming around to Obama's side! Gee, what made you sour on McCain -- was it the flip-flopping, his inherent nastiness or his bizarre pick of Palin? ;)
I agree. Obama was abysmal. So was McCain. In fact the whole debate was a farce.
(Quoting Nader) "Wake up Americans! Cut the crap and take over."
VOTE NADER 2008… You’ll be glad you did and so will I…
.
VOTE NADER...Waste Your Vote Yet Again in 08.
.I believe that wasting ones brain by refusing to study the positions of your candidate and reflecting upon how closely they mirror your own views and desires for this nation is a far worse crime than "wasting" ones vote by casting it for the only candidate who expresses my views and desires.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
You should just do a write-in vote for yourself.
After all, you've got just as much of a chance as any of the other third party candidates...
.A mind is a terrible thing to waste ctrl-z, you should really stop doing so....
. I do not understand why your comments get increasingly childish and shallow, havent you anything to contribute?
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee said: "I believe that wasting ones brain by refusing to study the positions of your candidate and reflecting upon how closely they mirror your own views and desires for this nation is a far worse crime than "wasting" ones vote by casting it for the only candidate who expresses my views and desires."
Come on ardee, who is going to "mirror your own views and desires for this nation" more than you? If you do a write-in vote for yourself you'll have as much chance of getting elected as any 3rd party candidate. You'll be a party of one.
Since you've already decided not to vote for a potential winner, you can stand proudly beside the losers. And the best part is you don't have to compromise a single principle.
BTW "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." So is an insult. I know you can do better than that.
Once again Common Dreams has an article on the "debate" without mentioning any but the 2 major party presidential candidates or pointing out that the "debate" was run by the Republican and Democratic parties.
Our democracy is failing because many of us with legitimate opinions are shut out of the political process (or getting their heads banged outside the conventions of our 2 major parties).
We don't hear the real alternatives that exist for health care, military foreign policy, trickle-down economics, globalization, a wealth-dominated political system, the growth-is-always-good philosophy, or bailouts for Wall Street paid for by Main Street.
To get a sense of what's not being discussed, I urge you to check out the Ralph Nader interview at http://www.votenader.org/live/. The fact that this man is not considered a "viable" candidate whereas people like McCain, Kerry and Bush are speaks volumes about our dysfunctional political system.
BTW -- The author of the present article wrote "Why You Can't 20th Century Politics with an 18th Century Brain." Maybe they need to print someone who understands 21st century politics!
...and once again we have a so-called "idealist" progressive complaining about there not being enough deck chairs on the Titanic as it heads towards the iceberg. Come on, first let's miss the iceberg.
The problem is that McCain and Obama can't see (or won't admit they see) the iceberg. (And I don't think we could avoid it even if they did.) The first priority of both parties is not to rock the boat, and to provide gold-encrusted lifeboats for themselves and the other members of the ruling class.
I don't think there's any way to avoid serious problems with our economy and our society. Individuals, families, corporations, and our government are heavily indebted. Our national debt has grown from about 2 trillion dollars in 1980 to almost 10 trillion today (in inflation adjusted dollars). The US personal savings rate is zero. We've almost totally lost our manufacturing base, and millions of middle class jobs with it. We have the largest trade deficit in the history of the world. We're heavily over-dependent on energy, much of which we import.
We don't need the little twists of technocratic knobs that Obama and McCain suggest, we need some radical re-thinking about our economy, our society and our lives. Muzzling people like Nader means that we are deprived of the real debate that we need.
Almost everything you said is correct, though I do believe Obama "sees the iceberg" - he just can't admit it as loudly as we'd like because of the silly things candidates have to do to get elected (like feign piety). But you're missing the forest for the trees. Obama and McSame have two different worldviews, even though various details are similar. Obama has a vision of America as a WE society (however imperfectely he represents that) and McSame has a vision of America as a ME society (represented quite well). 4 to 8 more years of a ME agenda and we're all sunk. 4 to 8 mores years of even a flawed WE agenda and we can stay afloat to push a truly progressive agenda.
.If only you were correct in your assessment of your candidate....I see Obama insisting we expand the war, not end it. I see Obama insisting we continue a for-profit health care that leaves tens of millions out in the cold. I see that Obama has collected more campaign monies from Wall Street than has McCain. I see more similarities between the two than one might expect, unless one understands that , in the end, both parties are far too much the same thing.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee [October 3rd, 2008 7:40 am], I don't know where you saw all of this. Obama is committed to withdrawing our troops from Iraq within 16 months and closing all forward bases, except for embassy guards. Obama has said that realistically universal health care will not pass in the Congress right now, but has a plan to make sure the uninsured are covered and those with health insurance will pay less. Your claim that he has taken more money from Wall Street is debatable; it depends how you count the donations and who they came from. McCain has accepted PAC money and most of his campaign staff are or recently were lobbyists; Obama has not accepted PAC money, and he has no former lobbyists on his staff.
If you have read what McCain proposes regarding Iraq, health care, and his career closeness to corporations and history of voting for deregulation, I don't know how you can say these two are close on those issues.
I suggest you read Obama's proposals at http://www.barackobama.com/issues
Why give them any help in framing anyway?
George Lakoff would be better off handing his advice to Third/Independent Party Progressive/Liberals for a change.
Let's see if Obama EVER says this to McCain: "You own 7 homes, 13 cars, your wife is worth tens of millions of dollars and you call me an elitist because I eat arugala and keep my tires inflated."
Yes, poor old Obama only owns what, two homes. He's got a mansion back in Chicago that he got in the crooked real estate deals with Rizzo or whatever his name was. And I'm sure he's got another expensive house in DC too.
Yep, truly just an ordinary man of the people like all the other Americans who own two or more mansions.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Samson [October 1st, 2008 5:09 pm] wrote:"Yes, poor old Obama only owns what, two homes. He's got a mansion back in Chicago that he got in the crooked real estate deals with Rizzo or whatever his name was. And I'm sure he's got another expensive house in DC too."
Actually, Samson, Obama owns just one home in the Hyde Park section of Chicago. It's a nice, large house, but I don't know if you could call it a 'mansion' -- at least not in the Hugh Hefner sense. His connection to Tony Rezko was thoroughly investigated and he came out clean as a whistle, and he didn't get his home from some crooked deal with Rezko -- he bought it at full market value. He also has just one car, a hybrid, and he's worth about $4 million, most of it coming from his books.
I suggest you read this:
"UPI baselessly asserted that Obama paid 'substantially lower than market value' for Rezko property," Media Matters, Jan. 25, 2008.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801250006
Meanwhile. McCain has at least seven expensive homes or luxury condos and 13 cars, and he's worth is over $100 million, most of it from his beer-heiress wife.
Nader isn't doing badly either; he earns a pretty good living from his books, speaking engagements and investments (he's worth about $4 million, as well), and lives in a Washington, DC, mansion with his sister that, for some reason, he put in her name.
Read this:
"But in his personal life, about which St. Ralph is very secretive, things are different. He lives well, using a D.C. mansion that he apparently owns (though the title is in his sister's name), earns millions from speaking and writing, and invests in — big, multinational corporations! He has net assets of about $4 million, most of it in corporate stock, such as the $1 million he owns in Cisco Systems, not to mention his stocks in major defense contractors such as GE and IBM. He controls nonprofit organizations and trusts, all secretly run, with his family members on the governing boards. His charitable foundations give away 4% of their assets every year, the lowest amount possible to keep their IRS tax-exempt status. The remaining assets are also in corporate stock, including telecom monopolies such as Verizon, BellSouth, and Qwest.
"It is no surprise that his hidden ownership of these various entities involves conflicts of interest, as when he pushed hard in speeches and legal briefs to break up Microsoft, all the while standing to gain enormously should the breakup have occurred, or when he privately brought shares in Ford while hammering General Motors. (Remember the Corvair?) And, oh yeah, while he praises unions, he blocks unionization of his own organizations."
-- Gary Jason, "Lifestyles of the Rich and Leftist," April 2006.
http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2006_04/jason-lifestyles.html
[BTW, I don't particularly like that right-wing source I linked to, but the info can be verified elsewhere.]
The fact is, most of these candidates running for president are very well-off, and it seems even Ralph Nader has feet of clay.
.
Nader says...
"Wake up Americans! Cut the crap and take over."
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008… You’ll be glad you did and so will I…
.
NADER IS RUNNING NECK TO NECK WITH A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE!
It's not Obama, it's William Jennings Bryan.
Both Nader and Bryan have lost three Presidential elections!
Can you help Nader pull out ahead with loss number four?
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008… McCain’ll be glad you did and so will Palin…
.
I’ll say it again…
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2000.
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2004.
We NEED Ralph Nader as President in 2008.
Never before as we do now
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
He lost in 1996
He lost in 2000
He lost in 2004
Can you help Ralph lose again?
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008… McCain’ll be glad you did and so will Palin…
To come off as the Democrats they call themselves, Dems could bring up the most democratic of all procedures, to let the people directly decide about the bailout with a binding referendum included in the ballot offering different alternatives popular with voters.
What about the other candidates who have been hogtied by our coporate, MSM media/society?
Maybe if they opened the debates up in line with the primaries we could get somewhere.
Why can't Nader or McKinney or Barr be invited to these "debates?"
Debates mean nothing given that
1. Neither Mccain nor Obama have nothing to run on other than subtely promising more of the same.
2. No invitation of 3rd party candidates such as Nader, Mckinney, Barr, etc ...
There might have been something worth looking at otherwise.
Sioux Rose
DFAIRLEY: I think you raise important points (and I see it the same way).
Some good points here. But I'm very certain that Barack could never be the asshole that McCain is, so if that's what you're looking for in the debates, forget it.
"1. Obama kept working within McCain's frames..."
That describes the relationship between Democrats and Republicans.
"Biden will have to come on at the beginning as a populist ..."
I think he'd rather lose to Palin than do that.
The Dems have had more than a generation to figure out the obvious, and they refuse, preferring Republican narrative frames. They far prefer to have their anti-war base in a free speech cage away from their convention than inside with a voice. They do respond to right-wing blather about flag lapel pins, however, with alacrity.
The Dems have made a political and ideological decision not to oppose the worst administration in history, so Lakoff has to know the likelihood of his advice being taken.
Face it: the Democrats believe in the Republican frames. Oh, but if you're a progressive, then they also own your vote for some reason.
Dem's are trapped by 'Pub frames because the news media sustains those values and assumptions.
It's not a fair fight when the newspaper editors back home are reinforcing the conservative viewpoint.
Sure, they publish "left" and "right" editorials, but the "framing" is delivered in the wording of headlines, the selection of photos, and the placement of stories from front page to back.
Don't get me started on local TV news...
Well, the big problem is that the Dems agree with the Repubs on almost every issue. The very fact that point number one in this article is that Obama should say "McCain agrees with me" instead of "I agree with McCain" says wonders about this.
IF Obama was really proposing real change, then it wouldn't matter what spin on it the editors apply. There is and always has been a large distrust of the media in this country. And if Obama was really proposing real change, that would kick in and people would listen to Obama and ignore the editors.
Example: Picture what would be happening right now if Obama came out strongly and forcefully against this bailout plan. We see a situations where the wealthy interests in DC want the bailout, but the people in the country are screaming loudly against it. So, what if Obama was giving forceful speeches against the bailout right now. Pounding on the podium and leading crowds in shouts of "NO!, NO!, NO!". Giving speeches asking why we can spend hundreds of billions on wars on the other side of the world, or why we are spending hundreds of billions bailing out Wall Street, but we can't help homeowners stop foreclosures. Or why we can't have a single payer health care system that works for all? Or why we can't pour billions into our schools or our infrastructure and create good jobs for Americans in troubled times in that way.
Obama could cut right through this if he was really talking about change. The problem is that Obama agrees way too much with Bush\McCain. Just like the Democratic Congress agrees way too much with Bush\McCain.
Vote Nader!
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
"Dem's are trapped by 'Pub frames because the news media sustains those values and assumptions."
The news media are bloody awful, but that still lets the Dems off the hook too easily. Don't they have any values? You'd think that any basic principles that give them meaning would be too important to automatically sacrifice to the preferences of corporate media.
"It's not a fair fight when the newspaper editors back home are reinforcing the conservative viewpoint."
Quite right. It's not a fight at all, though, when ... there's no fight.
"Don't get me started on local TV news..."
*barf* Same here.
Institute for Public Accuracy
Voter Purge Lists - The Brennan Center
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/voter_purges
The big red Nuke button is too big of a gun to be "shot from the hip".
Barcak isn't wonderful but McCain - Palin is the "Ticket to Nowhere"
Biden should be studying the performance of Lloyd Bentzen vs Dan Quayle. Class, maturity, intelligence, and honesty.
"5. McCain used "no second holocaust" to effect last week in courting the Jewish vote, which could be decisive in Florida. Obama and Biden need to use it,"
I can't believe CD is publishing this kind of Rovian crap.
"Biden should go after McCain's gambling, and point out his gamble last week, which resulted in his messing up the bill to fix the economic crisis."
That bill was to "fix the economic crisis" and somehow it's McCain fault it didn't pass? Was this article written by the DNC?
George Lakoff makes some good points.
Too bad he must add the apparently required "Obama and Biden need to use it..." referring to the absurd and demeaning red herring of a "second Holocaust."
The debates as run by the Debate Commission are just one more scam. Until the voices of Nader and a few others are allowed to be heard, there is no democracy, no respect for the voters, and no hope for change.
Don't be swayed by the fluff and puff. Think about the ISSUES !
How can anyone respect any candidate who participates in a closed debate ? Click the link, please.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/09/a-challenge-for-candidate-palin/
A quick guide to the debates.
All the candidates that you will see in these corporate sponsered debates have millions of dollars of corporate money in their accounts. Therefore, you will only hear tiny variations of what is acceptable to corporate America from them.
Meanwhile, any candidate not backed and sponsered by corporate America is barred from appearing in the debates.
This shows up in the obvious issue of the $700 billion bailout of the financial sector. The two candidates both have in the neighborhood of $20 million in contributions from the financial sector. Therefore both candidates will only offer slight variations of the plan to bailout the financial sector with our tax dollars. The candidates that are not bought off by corporate America and who oppose the bailout are not allowed to appear.
That's why this article focuses on narrow framing issues of the candidates. Since Obama and McCain agree on all major policies (war on terror, wall street bailout, globalization of our jobs, etc), the only recommendation that he can give is that Obama should say "Sen. McCain agrees with me" instead of "I agree with Sen. McCain".
The bigger problem is that since 70% of the voters say that the country is heading in the wrong direction, we would really like to hear from a candidate that doesn't agree at all with what's been going on.
Vote Nader!
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
I generally agree with Lakoff, except for this part:
"But such logical arguments won't carry the day with Conservative Populists. Biden will have to come on at the beginning as a populist attacking the need for such a bailout. Remember that polls among conservative populists are running more than 100-to-1 against. Also remember that conservative populists see liberals as elitists, and will see Biden negatively if he comes on as a policy wonk trying to upstage Palin on her ignorance about issues."
Conservative populists -- who would that be? If they aren't up to their ears in debt and one paycheck away from living in their car, then they must be well-off and those wealthy people are by no means 'populists.' The last 'conservative populists' I knew were truckers and the infamous 'Reagan Democrats.' The formerly GOP-friendly truckers are voting for Democrats this year, and the Reagan Dems -- mostly union members who once held good-paying jobs -- have all discovered what side of the bread their butter is on and are also backing Obama. (Even Country music icon and real conservative populist Merle Haggard is supporting the Dems in 2008.) Populism means you won't be crawling into bed with Grampy and the Beauty Queen this year, no matter what happens in this Biden-Palin debate or the two remaining between Obama and McCainiac. As a trucker told me a couple of weeks ago: "It's about time we had somebody with a brain as president," and he wasn't talking about McCain. The cycle has shifted -- I think most voters want a 'liberal elitist' in contrast to a bitter old codpiece with a temper problem and a moose meat-eating Hockey Mom who can't remember what magazines and newspapers she reads 'every day.'
As far as Palin diplaying her 'smart ass wit' in the debate, someone should tell her that being a smart ass only works if you're smart; otherwise, you're just an...
So, I take it you were doing your Rip Van Winkle bit and missed the whole Ron Paul campaign? That was pretty much a movement of 'conservative populists'.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Samson [October 1st, 2008 6:19 pm], good point, Samson, and today Ron Paul, along with Swift-Boater Jerome Corsi, is supporting the Constitution Party candidate, the religiously-insane Chuck Baldwin, for reasons I can't fathom.
Chuck Baldwin Thanks Ron Paul for His Endorsement:
http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=780
Here are the principles of the CP, with my commentary in brackets:
Seven Principles of the Constitution Party are:
1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;
[Opposed to women's rights, but not war. I think being killed in combat would qualify as an 'unnatural death.']
2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;
[i.e: No regulation of business or corporations.]
3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
[Against gay marriage or civil unions because they think the Bible tells them so.]
4. Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;
[No regulation of business, especially polluters.]
5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;
[They believe the Constitution is a Christian document, even though it doesn't say that anywhere in the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers were liberal products of the Enlightenment, something the CP most assuredly is not.]
6. States' Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government is reserved for the state and local jurisdictions;
[Except women's rights and the right to take drugs.]
7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances. [Get out, you lousy Mexicans!]
Dismising Bob Barr, Paul Endorses Baldwin:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/24/dismissing-bob-barr-ron-paul-endorses-constitution-party-candidate/
It would seem like the Libertarian Party would be the closest to the philospohy Ron Paul espoused -- perhaps he really wasn't much of a conservative populist after all.
.I personally believe Libertarianism to be a dangerous, selfish and quite possibly racist political ideology. Ron Paul's friendship with the guys from 'Stormfront' would seem to bear this out.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Biden, Biden, Biden. Iron Joe, that flinty-eyed man of few words but quick action. That gallant Lancelot who stared down the credit-card usurers, and demanded debt relief for the little man. That fearless Shane who stood tall against Big Chemical in Delaware. Amazing the metamorphosis Sarah Palin has wrought among the formerly despised amd contemptible. Why, even Katie Couric has become a rock-turning, muckraking Upton Sinclair in drag. Next thing you know, Wolf Blitzer will slap Dick Cheney in the mouth. Ah, Progressives...we never really knew ye.
Bwaaaaaaahahahahaha!
Thank you!
(wipes away a tear)
http://www.dipdive.com/dip-politics/wato/
Why can't it be challenged in the courts that no third-party candidate is allowed to participate in the debates? Where are all these zillions of US lwayers when you need them?
Maybe because all the judges are members of one of the two corporate parties, and because they are all picked by either the President or by the Senators from their state, then approved by a Senate full of members of the two parties.
I'm like 99% certain that Nader has been trying this route every year. Can't cite evidence, but I'd be surprised since Mr. Nader is himself a lawyer that he hadn't already tried this.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com