Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiAmerica’s Political Cannibalism
It is no longer our economy but our democracy that is in peril. It was the economic meltdown of Yugoslavia that gave us Slobodan Milosevic. It was the collapse of the Weimar Republic that vomited up Adolf Hitler. And it was the breakdown in czarist Russia that opened the door for Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Financial collapses lead to political extremism. The rage bubbling up from our impoverished and disenfranchised working class, glimpsed at John McCain rallies, presages a looming and dangerous right-wing backlash.
As the public begins to grasp the depth of the betrayal and abuse by our ruling class, as the Democratic and Republican parties are exposed as craven tools of our corporate state, as savings accounts, college funds and retirement plans become worthless, as unemployment skyrockets and as home values go up in smoke we must prepare for the political resurgence of a reinvigorated radical Christian right. The engine of this mass movement-as is true for all radical movements-is personal and economic despair. And despair, in an age of increasing shortages, poverty and hopelessness, will be one of our few surplus commodities.
Karl Polanyi in his book "The Great Transformation," written in 1944, laid out the devastating consequences-the depressions, wars and totalitarianism-that grow out of a so-called self-regulated free market. He grasped that "fascism, like socialism, was rooted in a market society that refused to function." He warned that a financial system always devolved, without heavy government control, into a Mafia capitalism-and a Mafia political system-which is a good description of the American government under George W. Bush. Polanyi wrote that a self-regulating market, the kind bequeathed to us since Ronald Reagan, turned human beings and the natural environment into commodities, a situation that ensures the destruction of both society and the natural environment. He decried the free market's belief that nature and human beings are objects whose worth is determined by the market. He reminded us that a society that no longer recognizes that nature and human life have a sacred dimension, an intrinsic worth beyond monetary value, ultimately commits collective suicide. Such societies cannibalize themselves until they die. Speculative excesses and growing inequality, he wrote, always destroy the foundation for a continued prosperity.
We face an environmental meltdown as well as an economic meltdown. This would not have surprised Polanyi, who fled fascist Europe in 1933 and eventually taught at Columbia University. Russia's northern coastline has begun producing huge qualities of toxic methane gas. Scientists with the International Siberian Shelf Study 2008 describe what they saw along the coastline recently as "methane chimneys" reaching from the sea floor to the ocean's surface. Methane, locked in the permafrost of Arctic landmasses, is being released at an alarming rate as average Arctic temperatures rise. Methane is a greenhouse gas 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. The release of millions of tons of it will dramatically accelerate the rate of global warming.
Those who run our corporate state have fought environmental regulation as tenaciously as they have fought financial regulation. They are responsible, as Polanyi predicted, for our personal impoverishment and the impoverishment of our ecosystem. We remain addicted, courtesy of the oil, gas and automobile industries and a corporate- controlled government, to fossil fuels. Species are vanishing. Fish stocks are depleted. The great human migration from coastlines and deserts has begun. And as temperatures continue to rise, huge parts of the globe will become uninhabitable. The continued release of large quantities of methane, some scientists have warned, could actually asphyxiate the human species.
The corporate con artists and criminals who have hijacked our state and rigged our financial system still speak to us in the obscure and incomprehensible language coined by specialists at elite business schools. They use terms like securitization, deleveraging, structured investment vehicles and credit default swaps. The reality, once you throw out their obnoxious jargon, is not hard to grasp. Banks lent too much money to people and financial institutions that could not pay it back. These banks are now going broke. The government is frantically giving taxpayer dollars to banks so they can be solvent and again lend money. It is not working. Bank lending remains frozen. There are ominous signs that the government may not be able to hand over enough of our money because the losses incurred by these speculators are too massive. If credit markets remain in a deep freeze, corporations such as AT&T, Ford and General Motors might go bankrupt. The downward spiral could spread like a tidal wave across the country, especially since our corporate elite, including Barack Obama, seem to have no real intention of bailing out families who can no longer pay their mortgages or credit card debts.
Lenin said that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch its currency. If our financial disaster continues there will be a widespread loss of faith in the mechanisms that regulate society. If our money becomes worthless, so does our government. All traditional standards and beliefs are shattered in a severe economic crisis. The moral order is turned upside down. The honest and industrious are wiped out while the gangsters, profiteers and speculators amass millions. Look at Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld. He walks away from his bankrupt investment house after pocketing $485 million. His investors are wiped out. An economic collapse does not only mean the degradation of trade and commerce, food shortages, bankruptcies and unemployment; it means the systematic dynamiting of the foundations of a society. I watched this happen in Yugoslavia. I fear I am watching it happen here in the United States.
The Patriot Act, the FISA Reform Act, the suspension of habeas corpus, the open use of torture in our offshore penal colonies, the stationing of a combat brigade on American soil, the seas of surveillance cameras, the brutal assaults against activists in Denver and St. Paul are converging to determine our future. Those dark forces arrayed against American democracy are waiting for a moment to strike, a national crisis that will allow them in the name of national security and moral renewal to shred the Constitution. They have the tools. They will use fear, chaos, the hatred for the ruling elites and the specter of left-wing dissent and terrorism to impose draconian controls to extinguish our democracy. And while they do it they will be waving the American flag, singing patriotic slogans and clutching the Christian cross. Fuld, I expect, will be one of many corporatists happy to contribute to the cause.
This is a defining moment in American history. The next few weeks and months will see us stabilize and weather this crisis or descend into a terrifying dystopia. I place no hope in Obama or the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is a pathetic example of liberal, bourgeois impotence, hypocrisy and complacency. It has been bought off. I will vote, if only as a form of protest against our corporate state and an homage to Polanyi's brilliance, for Ralph Nader. I would like to offer hope, but it is more important to be a realist. No ethic or act of resistance is worth anything if it is not based on the real. And the real, I am afraid, does not look good.
203 Comments so far
Show AllPlease see the Newsweek article "Nader in Florida: Remember Me?" by Richard Wolfe in the October 20th issue. He explains how the Nader effect has reversed course and may actually help Obama, particularly in Florida. Kevin Hill is quoted in the article as saying "Nader's populist rhetoric appeals to white working-class voters who lean conservative. It's probably more of a protest than anything else." McCain aides argue that Nader's poll ratings are too low to be significant. Nader's campaign suggest he'll far exceed his dismal total of about 400,000 votes in 2004. Thanks Naderites!
I wonder if it would be possible for Obama supporters to list a few things Obama has done as a Senator that would make someone want to jump up and down and vote for him. He has been a Senator for a good number of years (almost 3), so he must have a very impressive list of accomplishments indeed.
Please list only his most impressive accomplishments. I am also sure he must have a very distinguished resume. Right?
Ric_Abreau
Quit asking others to do your research for you. Learn to google.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
"Obama voted in favor of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and cosponsored the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act.[58] In September 2006, Obama supported a related bill, the Secure Fence Act.[59] Obama introduced two initiatives bearing his name: Lugar–Obama, which expanded the Nunn–Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons,[60] and the Coburn–Obama Transparency Act, which authorized the establishment of USAspending.gov, a web search engine on federal spending.[61] On June 3, 2008, Senator Obama, along with Senators Thomas R. Carper, Tom Coburn, and John McCain, introduced follow-up legislation: Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008.[62]
Obama sponsored legislation requiring nuclear plant owners to notify state and local authorities of radioactive leaks.[63] In December 2006, President Bush signed into law the Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act, marking the first federal legislation to be enacted with Obama as its primary sponsor.[64] In January 2007, Obama and Senator Feingold introduced a corporate jet provision to the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which was signed into law in September 2007.[65] He introduced Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act, a bill to criminalize deceptive practices in federal elections.[66] Obama also introduced the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007.[67]
Obama and Richard Lugar visit a Russian mobile launch missile dismantling facility[68]Later in 2007, Obama sponsored an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act adding safeguards for personality disorder military discharges.[69] He sponsored the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act supporting divestment of state pension funds from Iran's oil and gas industry, and co-sponsored legislation to reduce risks of nuclear terrorism.[70][71] Obama also sponsored a Senate amendment to the State Children's Health Insurance Program providing one year of job protection for family members caring for soldiers with combat-related injuries.[72]
Committees
Obama held assignments on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations, Environment and Public Works and Veterans' Affairs through December 2006.[73] In January 2007, he left the Environment and Public Works committee and took additional assignments with Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.[74] He also became Chairman of the Senate's subcommittee on European Affairs.[75] As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama has made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa.[76][77][78][79]"
Precisely why I won't be voting for the twit.
is this supposed to be a joke?
after two whole years?
in reality, he and his staff are notorious on the hill for being no-shows at committee meetings, hearings, and caucuses. (the only benefit this union worker derives from living near the hill is having neighbors who work in Congress and who provide me the details from "between the lines.")
once more, we're subjected to "this election is too important."
seriously, folks. once you stop drinking the kool-aid, you'll wonder why you ever felt like you needed it to live. vote 3d party, and send a strong message to the capitulating, complicit, spineless (D) party that they can no longer take our votes for granted while simutaneously kowtowing to Wall Street.
"no gods, no masters" --m. sanger
I read that already. Nothing. Big deal.
WAR
FISA
BAILOUTS
Ric
See my response to your other post below.
Anyone interested in attending a Nader House Party in North Jersey email auspiciousbunny@yahoo.com
"I place no hope in Obama or the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is a pathetic example of liberal, bourgeois impotence, hypocrisy and complacency."
Now that is for real. I watched my Senators from Jersey (both of whom I voted for) give their approval, heartfelt or otherwise, to every heinous piece of Bush legislation to come their way, war funding, FISA, Military Commissions, torture, bailout, more bailout, etc, etc. It's enough to make you defect from them wholesale. Which is what I am doing.
President McCain thanks you.
get yer foxholes dug...
It is not a question of which personality (McCain or Obama) people prefer. You'd think after this many setbacks people on the "left" would get it, but dogma runs thick. It's not a matter of what Obama or McCain would do. It's a matter of what the political elite in this world want. They're already telling you the social safety net can't be maintained in the wake of this bank bailout. Are you listening? Do you understand that people who bail out banks to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars; do you understand that people who would rather pursue a war of aggression in a part of the world not their own are insane? Do you understand that? Do you understand that what you're looking at is a replay of the contradictions that wracked the world prior to the First World War, i.e., a western banks loan crisis and the campaign to carve up the Middle East? Do you understand that capitalism can't function without imperialism and speculation (or planned economy for the rich) in a world with this many people in it? And if you don't understand that, why don't you want to?
Nanoo
This article is a pleasant surprize, for the way Commondreams has been slanted lately in support of Obama. Great comments Aquifer.
Nader knows corporate law, banking and economics. He'd be the one to fix this current economic crisis. Just recently I've been able to change the way several people I know to vote for him. I think this is a good sign and one I hope is being repeated all over the country.
Thank you kindly, but I feel very ineffective. If you have actually been able to change people's minds, PLEASE tell me how you did it so I can try your methods! I'll be eagerly awaiting your response!
.
Nader/Gonzales is looking better and BETTER...
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
For more information on the Nader/Gonzalez campaign,
Support by giving DONATIONS to make this happen ...
VOTE NADER 2008 !!!!! WORLD PEACE !!!!!!! End THE WARS......
.
Who in the world is Gomez? Is that the guy on the Addams Family?
Sorry, I reread this and realized she said Gonzales.
The only thing I'm saying is I'd never heard of them before. I did see Nader
on PBS news last night for a minute. He was interesting but he has alot of ground to make up in 3 short weeks.
.
Nader can win....... The voters will decide.
Nader will change things.
Nader is our only hope.
Nader is the only choice.
Fight the Two-party system.
VOTE NADER 2008… You’ll be glad you did and so will I…
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
NADER IS RUNNING NECK TO NECK WITH A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE!
It isn't 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… 'Cain and unAble will be glad you did...
.
VOTE NADER 2008 !!!!!!
End the wars
Bring the troops home
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
Try "A Vote for Nader is as Good as a Vote for Snoopy".
We have taxation without representation. We have a government that does not represent the public trust, they just represent the corporate elite.
Common Dreams has turned into another democratic party supporting Moveon type organization that does not take the necessary step to presenting alternative views that offer a solution. Is it out of fear? A misguided sense of working with the system even after the system (and the democratic party) has betrayed them time after time?
Yes, an occasional Chris Hedges article so they can say they are 'progressive' but it is the thinnest of veneers that doesn't hide their basic support of the mainstream democratic candidate who puts the corporate elite's interest first and foremost each and every time.
And to the people who state that Hedges is getting more radical, instead consider the fact that he is addressing the core issues that need to be corrected is peace and justice were ever to become a viable mainstream concept. The solution is to the far 'left' of Obama. If you are looking for a solution that lies between Obama and McCain, it is like looking for your genitals on the tip of your nose, you ain't even in the right ballpark.
Vote Third Party, vote Nader, vote Green, but don't support the status quo.
There is going to be only one way that things change. And that is if we demand it. Voting for Obama is more than just pathetic acquiescence, it is surrendering your power at a very critical time. Obama will betray you more than McCain will.
www.NotOneMore.US sez: "Voting for Obama is more than just pathetic acquiescence, it is surrendering your power at a very critical time."
If you want to 'surrender your power', vote for a 3rd party Presidential candidate.
That's a vote that won't be helping anyone.
It won't help put the 3rd party candidate in office.
It won't help decide who wins the election.
It'll just be a throw-away vote.
Or you could help to make a difference.
Obama '08
I feel your pain ctrl-z. I would be glad to vote for Democrat Obama if you would just help me out. Can you please make me a list of what the Democrats have done for us over the last 2 yrs since they have been in control of the Congress. And please tell me about their accomplishments over the last 4 to 8 yrs.
I am not sure why I should vote for Democrats seeing as I can't think of a single thing they've done for me. I know they have done plenty of things I am against. You know, it just makes no sense to me, to vote for a party that has done nothing for me and done a lot of things against me.
In fact I am against the Democrats on key issues:
1) war
2) curbing of civil rights
3) lack of single payer health care
4) nuclear power and offshore drilling
4) bailing out Wall Street fat cats
5 failure to impeach Bush or hold him accountable
It makes no sense to support a party you don't believe in. Voting for Obama would be like betraying myself and what I believe. I don't want to sell myself out. Gee, I do hope you understand.
Ric Abreau
I think the Dems, and Obama, have made a lot of political calculations that caused them to make very bad votes. I'm not sure the bailout is in that category. I think they actually believed they needed to address a crisis, but it's quite possible that was also a political calculation.
The other mistakes; voting for the FISA bill and the 'get out of jail free' card for the phone companies, continuing the war funding, authorizing off-shore drilling and taking impeachment off the table, I think these were all political decisions.
If they voted no on FISA - they're soft on terrorism.
If they didn't pass the war funding - they're not supporting the troops.
If they didn't authorize off-shore drilling and nuclear power - they're responsible for gas and energy prices & shortages.
If they didn't take impeachment off the table - they're attacking the Commander in Chief in a time of war.
If they didn't support the bailout - they're responsible for the crash of the economy.
I think they decided that nothing was more important than getting the Republicans out of the White House and getting larger majorities in Congress.
So when Obama, who taught Constitutional Law, spoke out against the FISA bill, he was saying what he thought. When he voted for it his vote was an act of self-defense against Republican campaign talking points.
I think the Dems bad votes were the same thing - acts of self defense so they could get enough power to begin reversing the horrors of the Bush years.
I don't like it, but it may have been necessary.
If they aren't in power they can't change anything.
So I'm voting to give them a chance.
Because it will either be 'Cain & Unable' or Obama & Biden.
You can help select the President or you can let others decide.
Your choice.
Got it. So in order for Democrats to protect themselves from Republican attacks they become Republicans. Nice.
What BS. What tortured logic. This stuff wouldn't even pass muster in a 7th grade debate class.
>>If they voted no on FISA - they're soft on terrorism.
No, if they voted against it, they are voting for protecting our constitutional rights.
>>If they didn't pass the war funding - they're not supporting the troops.
No, if they voted to end the war, they'd be supporting the troops and the will of the vast majority of the American people who wanted us to be out of Iraq...like yesterday.
>>If they didn't authorize off-shore drilling and nuclear power - they're responsible for gas and energy prices & shortages.
No, because if they voted against this nonsense, they'd be pro-environments and pro-sanity. This vote will do absolutely nothing for gas and energy prices.
>>If they didn't take impeachment off the table - they're attacking the Commander in Chief in a time of war.
Oh come on....! That sure didn't stop the impeachment of Nixon. Shrub still has a handful of supporters, er...zealots (less than 25 percent). But do you think any of the remaining 75 percent want to see him continue to screw them over just out of respect for him being the "idiot-in-chief" while soldeirs an untold numbers of civilians die?
>>If they didn't support the bailout - they're responsible for the crash of the economy.
This is particularly ludicrous. The economy is still going to crash. Look at the success of the trillions handed to Wall Street so far. All this does is postpone the event until the idiot-in-chief and his cronies are out of the White House. And then who'll be left holding the bag? In a nanosecond the finger will be pointed at the new resident. The dems are handing Bush a golden (platinum) parachute out of either out of their own stupidity, or their own wish to grab as much cash from their corporate masters while the titanic sinks into the sea.
>>So when Obama, who taught Constitutional Law, spoke out against the FISA bill, he was saying what he thought. When he voted for it his vote was an act of self-defense against Republican campaign talking points.
I am laughing my ass off at the disconnect here. Hardy har, har...you say he spoke out against it before he voted for it in an "act of self-defense." Right. I'd like to know how you keep your head from exploding, really I would.
The point is that you are missing the point. Obama and the dems voted this way on these important issues BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT THEY WANTED. Not because of misguided "political calculations", as you naievley assert. They serve the same corporate masters as the rethugs do. Our one-party system with two right wings.
Your view often seems to boil down to:
"Well the democrats screwed me up the ass the last time, but they had to. They won't do it next time."
Then after the sixth or seventh time you get screwed, "well I know they've screwed me seven times now but if I vote for them again they sure won't make it eight!"
Let me know next time you're in Vegas, will ya, Ctrl-z? I want to sit at the poker or crap table and watch you weep as you hemorrhage money while the dice come up snake eyes every single time, never suspecting that they might be loaded. It would give me great pleasure.
As Oscar Levant put it:
"The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats allow the poor to be corrupt, too."
>>You can help select the President or you can let others decide.
You might be able to select the President if you were allowed to have a real choice. Otherwise you just have the illusion that you can decide.
Biomass
Let me guess, your solution is to vote for someone who will not be elected, right?
Or perhaps you're just going to stay home.
Or you're voting for McCain.
Which is it?
People with arguments just like yours helped put/keep Bush in office (well, arguments and corrupt election officials).
Were you spewing the same biowaste in 2000 and 2004?
I agree with most of your post except being so critical of CD. I agree they may be Obama supporters but you have to give them some credit because they do publish anti Obama articles too, maybe not enough but they still do.
I think McCain has proven how progressive he is by his Neoconservative base pick of Palin. His ticket is a ticket to the "end times" for America.
I choose hope over hopeless idealism.
I think you are shooting a straw man - no one that I know of has ever claimed McCain was progressive. Then again, neither is Obama. The "best" that might be said of him is that he is a "liberal", but that and $5 will get you a cup of coffee. "Liberal" ain't what it used to be, but then again, perhaps it never was.
This country was founded on "hopeless idealism". At the risk of overusing my line (which I probably already have) - it's a good thing you weren't around in the 1770s, Washington would have had no luck with you.
You probably wouldn't have wanted Washington.
You'd want some other long shot like Nader.
No, actually what I want is to vote for the person who best represents me! And-- knowing a lot about myself, Obama and Nader-- it is obvious to me that person is Ralph Nader. I'm not going to waste my vote on someone who will not support the policy I support.
It's the "we'll take the lesser evil" types who are disempowered. They're allowing the MSM, and what they imagine other people will do, choose who they will vote for.
There you go, I was expecting the "lesser of 2 evils" cliche at some point.
Thanks for not disappointing me. Please read about Nader by Richard Wolfe in this week's Newsweek.
Dafoe
It wasn't Lenin that led to the rotten system in the USSR it was Stalin who entrenched one man rule in Russia, small correection.
We have a democracy? Didn't the statue of liberty say "give me your poor and your huddled masses." Or was that give me your bags of cashes.
Chris Hedges is a courageous speaker of the truth!
As the public begins to grasp the depth of the betrayal and abuse by our ruling class, as the Democratic and Republican parties are exposed as craven tools of our corporate state...
-BINGO!
The corporate con artists and criminals who have hijacked our state and rigged our financial system still speak to us in the obscure and incomprehensible language coined by specialists at elite business schools.
-Maybe, but if put in layman lingo it's simple, "Let me get my hands in your pockets so I can steal you blind."
The Patriot Act, the FISA Reform Act, the suspension of habeas corpus, the open use of torture in our offshore penal colonies, the stationing of a combat brigade on American soil, the seas of surveillance cameras, the brutal assaults against activists in Denver and St. Paul are converging to determine our future.
-what is bipartisanship?
I place no hope in Obama or the Democratic Party.
-gee why not? Haven't they done a great deal these last 8 yrs for us? They have funded nonstop war, allowed Bush to shred the Constitution and then protected him from impeachment and also spearheaded the Wall Street bailout of fat cats.
Come on Chris, don't you have hope Democrats can continue the Bush agenda even after Bush is sent back to his village in Texas where an idiot was reported missing?
Hope! Yes we can! Change! Yes we can ! Change! Hope!
Congratulations Mr. Hedges! You walk a true course.
Here is to hoping you cast that Nader vote in a Swing State.
Congratulations again; Here is to a McCain Victory!
Your Moral Superiority Humbles Me.
It would have been nice though if I saw some real time consequence to this Saintliness other than helping McCain.
Or does Nader split the CONservative base?
To Altruism.
Hedges says he has no hope. Nice Summation Chris; You are Hopeless.
Even though Mr. Hedges has perhaps accurately portrayed our glass as less than half empty, I suspect he is less a prophet named Jeremiah than an old-fashioned, down-home masochist and nihilist, and a rather pathetic nihilist at that, because expressing his dismay by voting for the spiritually self-serving Mr. Nader ends his lament with a whimper, not a bang.... Translucent, I think you’re right on-mark.
Projection is amusing to watch sometimes.
Hmmm, if voting for who you think is the best candidate helps McCain, then what does that say about Obama?
You don't get it, do you? Obama's base is his to lose. If he has lost it, it is no longer his base. Those who vote for Obama have clearly abandoned any real claim to being progressive, so there is no "base" for Nader to split, and genetic Dems will vote for Obama no matter what. You really don't get it do you?
Sometimes I am tempted to think that Obama voters are just jealous because we have a much better candidate than you do. But it's OK, we're willing, in fact eager, to share. C'mon over, you'll be much happier when you have a candidate you don't have to apologize for all the time.
Vote for the person who is the best candidate, who has the most experience, and who represents your value system. And cut the armchair strategy garbage please, Democrats.
Democrats act like a bunch of big babies. They don't want a Democracy-- they want people's votes for free, without representing those people! They will tell you they believe in the U.S. as a Democracy -- but if they are challenged by someone else in an election, they whine and protest. Oh my, they might actually have to prove they will really represent those who would vote for them! (But they can't seem to do it. That's the main problem.)
It seems they're similar to their pals back on Wall Street, you know the ones who want to play "free market" until things don't go their way and then they cry helpless for a bailout.
Was that directed at me?
chris has once again given a good insightful article on the state of this sorry political landscape of america. i wish most progressives had the guts to vote for a 3rd party like nader/gonzalez. then we would have a real revolution on our hands. instead, we'll get the same old politics.
yes, if obama/biden wins then the onus is on those dems who voted for them. they'll have a lot of answering and explaining to do should those candidates fail miserably at bringing that so-called vaunted "change" we've all been dying to witness but haven't in the least noticed thus far. quite the opposite. didn't bush also tout the "change" mantra without much substance or experience behind his name? i guess it's deja vous all over again....only with the other corporate party this time around. i can almost sense the "i told you so" coming out of my mouth in the future even though i dread it.
here's a poll, btw, of the presidential candidates...with some surprising results when all the 3rd parties are included: http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/978281
Chris is the only Cat worth reading on this site any more.
Man the enfranchised elites have taken over the show offering nothing more than perpetual plan B, perpetual obfuscation, perpetual excuses, and perpetual dishonesty.
Agree.
Alan MacDonald
Hedges explains, "I place no hope in Obama or the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is a pathetic example of liberal, bourgeois impotence, hypocrisy and complacency. It has been bought off. I will vote, if only as a form of protest against our corporate state and an homage to Polanyi's brilliance, for Ralph Nader."
I fully agree with Chris and found the following recent comparison regarding the Wall Street 'bailout' to compellingly show that Obama and the Democratic Party have no clue about the real class division in this corporatist Empire:
"What this crisis has taught us is that at the end of the day, there is no real separation between Main Street and Wall Street."
Obama’s Senate speech of Oct 1, on passing the 'bailout' for Wall Street.
Even Tom Brokaw understands the class nature of our battle with the corporatist Empire better than Obama:
MR. BROKAW: "All right. Let--for the two of you, as we begin to wrap up here, let me ask you whether the greater fault line is Main Street vs. Wall Street, rather than race?"
From "Meet the Press" Oct 12.
Only Ralph Nader, the 'democracy advocate', has the knowledge, strength, and candor to take-on the ruling-elite 'corporatist Empire' hiding behind their facade of this two-party, 'Vichy' government.
Could you please explain what strength in numbers Nader has to win this election?
Please remind me of what percentages he won in the last 2 elections.
What will he break this time? Three percent? Five? Well, that makes the election closer still and easier to steal again.
Like I said before, ego. And possibly pay-offs.
And pray tell, who is paying off the other two to sell us all out? Check out the source of the biggest campaign contributions to Obama and McCain and then get back to me on "pay-offs". See if Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley and the rest of the Wall Street crew aren't way up there on your man Obama's list and then come back and talk about "payoffs". Puh-leeze. Even if Ralph were getting "payoffs", which I would like you to prove, if you can, his wouldn't amount to a molecule compared to Obama's and McCains.
But you would be correct to point out that this is one area where Ralph couldn't hold a candle to Obama.
Hmm, come to think of it, in a country that equates money with votes, that could explain Ralph's percentages. Hmm, maybe that's what we need to do, steal some money to steal some votes. If Ralph's percentages are small, maybe that reflects the size of his purse, which in turn reflects the size of the purses of those, like you and me, he represents. Yeah, unless you're a millionaire, he represents your interests too, whether you know it or not. So his loss is ours and that of future generations, which is why we will have to work that much harder ...
If it's true he "can't win", which I do not concede, that is really too bad, and I do not really understand why you seem to derive so much pleasure in promoting this idea.
Good morning boys,
I don't derive pleasure in the fact that Nader will lose. I agree that our system is imperfect. I'm just as disappointed with the Dems who took impeachment off the table. Money rules the game, it's true. Ante up or fold and in Palin's case, bluff. McCain is doing so badly in the polls, that I think unscrupulous Repubs will push the Green Party in order to steal votes from Obama. History repeats itself.
My complaint with Nader is that he's had almost a decade to build a movement that could change things. As intelligent as he is, he's not getting it done. You and he can pout about it or join the movement that CAN make change happen: OBAMA/BIDEN.
If you choose to waste a vote by voting for him or not voting, then you're allowing the Bush/McCain train wreck to continue. And my children suffer for it.
Your children likely will suffer either way.
Since 1980, the asthma rate in the United States has risen 66 percent.
The middle class is shrinking, average salaries are not rising in step with the cost of living. Future citizens will be stuck with the deepening debt of the U.S.
We are destroying parts of this country at an alarming rate. Mountaintop removal mining is destroying massive areas of the Appalachian Mountains. There are vast areas of South Dakota, Eastern Wyoming and Nebraska that are radioactive because of Uranium mining pollution, and this mining is ongoing, with the waste pumped into aquifers in that region. We are selling uranium abroad.
Cattle that provide beef people in the U.S. eat are grown in this region. Some of them are fed contaminated grass and drinking water from the Cheyenne River, which has been found to be radioactive in certain regions.
In New Jersey, near where I live, the PSEG coal burning reactor is one of the largest carbon and pollution emitting facilities in the world.
Is Obama is going to really make that much of a difference? Who will the congress be?
Where to begin ...
The Green Party as a front for Reps?! I don't think that one even needs a reply. Folks join the Green Party for a number of reasons, but what they share in common, I suppose, is that they have already given up on the "major" parties, i.e. their votes weren't available to Obama in the first place. They weren't his to be "stolen". It never fails to amaze me when I hear this argument - that at birth one's vote automatically "belongs" to either a Dem or a Rep and if one fails to render it to either, it means one has "stolen" it from them. Interesting take on democracy.
I find it equally fascinating that you blame Nader for not singlehandedly building a "movement" of sufficient grandeur to impress you. The list of organizations he has founded is as long as your arm and the legislation he has prompted is impressive as well. If you do not know this, then you have not checked him out and if you have not checked him out then how can you make any statements about him at all? You want a "Party" from him? Obama didn't build a party. Nor, for that matter did he build a movement. I'm afraid you are mistaking celebrity for leadership. The only "change" Obama will bring is the color of the guy in the oval office, and while that may indeed be a welcome change, it is hardly a good enough reason to put him there when balanced against all his lousy positions on the important issues that face us. He "CAN" make change happen, but he won't, nor does he really intend to because, as Molly Ivins would say, "you gotta dance with the one that brung ya," and he's Wall Street's man all the way. Nader is not.
As much as I dislike Bush, this "train wreck" you refer to was set in motion under previous administrations, including at least one Dem one, and, as you point out, the Dems refused to impeach even when all his atrocities were undeniable. Has Obama ever pushed for impeachment? Nader has.
At any point in time, you could have joined any one of the organizations that Nader initiated, but apparently you stood back, waiting for him to do what, exactly? He did not build a party that impressed you. Does that mean the party you are voting for does?
No movement is built by one man, with the possible exception of the major monotheisms and even there, it took considerably longer than a decade. The "movement" that Nader belongs to is already there and has been for awhile. It is called by various names. I call it progressivism. It's tenets are fairly clear. It has existed for decades, if not centuries and periodically coalesces around individuals for electoral purposes. If you choose not to join it, that's fine, but do not deny that it is there to join.
Your arguments are so thin and so familiar that I cannot believe they are truly the basis of your defense of Obama or your dismissal of Nader. Rather they seem picked out of a fast food menu to justify your position after the fact. First you decide for Obama, based on heaven knows what, then oppose Nader because he is running against him (and McCain as well), then you pick out some talking points for the sake of conversation. So I will ask you again, is there ANY Dem you would not support if (s)he were on the ticket?
I can't help feeling that, in the end, you are not voting FOR Obama, but AGAINST McCain, which of course is your right. But until you actually start voting FOR something you will inevitably be disappointed even when you "win".
My, my, aren't you full of it today. You must have just woken up from your futon bed in your parent's basement. Eat your ramen noodles and put the bong away.
You still haven't answered to what percent of the vote Nader has gotten in the past 2 elections. You still haven't answered who his running mate(s) is or has been? Is Nader even on the ballot in all 50 states? Has he been in a debate this year?
Now that you're awake:
Get real and get serious!
Nader is not a serious candidate and has not a chance in Hell to win this election.
All he will do is take votes away from Obama.
You may choose to give up. I can't do that to my children.
I'd love to wake up from a bed in my parents' basement, unfortunately they both died a number of years ago. Not particularly crazy about ramen noodles and can't remember the last time I saw a bong. So now that we've dealt with the essential points of your post ...
Nader is on the ballot in 45 states, whose electoral votes are enough to take the election. He will be in a 3rd party debate on C-Span this Sunday and has tried like heck to get on the MSM debates but they won't let him in. The debate commission, in case you didn't know, is run by former heads of the 2 "major" parties and certainly doesn't want the public to hear him. The debates used to be run by the League of Women Voters who gave up after the 2 parties refused to participate if 3rd parties were let in.
I don't deny that his % in the last elections were low. Being shut out of the debates and minimized by the MSM gives him next to no opportunity to appeal to voters, many of whom would find him the best of the bunch. You, apparently, don't know much about him, which makes my case.
Now that I've answered some of your questions, how about mine? Are you voting FOR Obama because you like him or because he's not McCain? And, for the umpteenth time, is there a Dem. you wouldn't vote for if (s)he were on the ticket?
Nader is a very serious candidate and his chances depend on how many people pull his lever in that booth.
Again, any votes Nader gets are not Obama's to lose! No vote BELONGS to him.
You are not the only discussant with children around here.
I cannot show my children an example of voting for war, torture, evisceration of the Constitution, payment of ransom to Wall Street, and so on. I cannot show my children passive acceptance of same.
Little is more serious than setting a good example.
Insisting upon the primacy of "winning" without attaching "winning" to the things that give it meaning is worse than not serious. It is complicity.
Fine, I'm sure your vote will count for so much.
non-sequitur
I guess you'll feel so righteous when President Palin puts you and
your children in a concentration camp. They have been built already
in the Bush administration. Ralph Nader might get to be the
Commandant.
Reason is better than polemic.
How reasonable is it to think that Nader can pull it off with 3 weeks to go?
How reasonable is it to endure 4 more years of the last 8 years?
You seem like an intelligent person, do you understand enabling behavior?
Of course I understand enabling behavior, and the irony of such a question coming from a Democratic partisan is superlative.
Where exactly was it that I wrote I was voting for Nader?
Do the merits of an idea change depending upon the secret ballot cast by the arguer?
Obama has built a movement especially with young people.
Hillary built a movement with women.
McCain built a movement by playing to the conservative base with Palin.
Nader built a movement with consumer protection in the 70's. Great job
Ralph! Thanks but no thanks on the Presidency.
Vote/Vote Early!
I'm in college for a second time and I don't see much of an Obama movement there, honestly. Anyway if people like to recite Obama's name by rote, unthinking, without taking a look at his voting record, that is not a movement but a testament to people's susceptibility to brainwashing.
Alan MacDonald
bluemama, if you denigrate Nader as only a 'consumer advocate' and fail to even recognize that he is the outstanding 'democracy advocate' of our times (comparable to Jefferson), then you blew it mama.
I have long said that; The very most important question that the American people should be asking of any candidate for president in '08 is not, "Where do you stand on the war?" or "Where do you stand on the economy?", but, "Where do you stand on the corporatist EMPIRE that has taken over our country --- an Empire of which the war in Iraq, the domestic economic oppression, and their tyranny at home are only their biggest and most visible crimes --- so far?"
As Hannah Arendt presciently warned in the era of the Nazi Empire, "Empire abroad (always) entails tyranny at home."
Nader is the only candidate who will even whisper the word 'empire'. He's not just taking-on corporate power --- he knows he's taking-on 'corporatist Empire' in all its political, economic, and military abuses, just as our founding fathers in the initial American Revolution knew that they were taking-on the political AND economic oppression of the British Empire.
The American Revolution rejected the age-old chains of a ruling-elite Empire by whatever name; empire, monarchy, dictatorship, autocracy, corpocracy, etc. and fought for the genius of self-governing democracy in all spheres --- the 'power' over their own society's political economy in BOTH the political and economic realm.
The beginning of the American Revolution and the establishment of American democracy focused on wiping-out the abuses of Empire by outlawing royalty AND corporations (like the East India royal chartered monopoly Corporation) --- but the cancer of 'corporatist empire' ultimately grew again on the economic side of our society.
The continuation of the American Revolution, now nearly two and a half centuries later will complete the democratic American dream of the freedom of men from empire ---- this time from a guileful, ruling-elite 'corporatist Empire' which rules behind the facade of its two-party, 'Vichy' American charade of a government.
One truth remains today, as an old American Revolutionary wag said, "We'll have to hang together, or we'll hang separately."
Will you be a royalist/loyalist to the 'corporatist Empire'? Or will you have the courage to be a patriot and minuteman of democracy?
Hear! Hear! (did I get it right this time?)
Ah, yes, and the early Republic actually had the gall to erect tariffs to protect its manufacturing base! What a concept! But wait, isn't that what "developing" countries wish to do now? Maybe a little more "protectionism" and a little less "free trade" would be good for EVERYBODY. But I can't get progressives to touch that one with a 10 foot pole.
The end of empire requires self sufficiency. And that requires such things as making our own underwear again. And that requires protecting our manufacturers from the depredations of the multi nationals who have figured out how to separate producers from consumers to the detriment of both, through the WTO, etc. As even such a wit as Tom Friedman pointed out, MacDonald's requires McDonnell Douglas to spread far and wide. If we no longer felt the need to "compete in the global market" would we still feel the need to bomb the village markets in faraway places? If every country could be self-sufficient, would their people still have a need to leave home, except to visit? What if only people and ideas crossed the seas, wouldn't the world be a nicer place? I suspect the whales, for one, would be much happier.
Just as blog commenters experience recurring problems in correctly understanding humor or sarcasm flattened by the Internet medium, so do readers have difficulty reading passionate expression in a culture which is acutely ambivalent about the place of passion in discussion of public affairs.
In an age of technocracy, passion-- like imagination-- is devalued and displaced by the need for efficient and information-rich communication. In practice, that is. However, the inherent virtue of qualities like "passion" or "imagination" are recognized by bottling them up and reducing them to ceremonial values. We expect a valedictorian or preacher to employ passion and imagination.
If one scrutinizes Hedges with a certain Roundhead temperamental squint, drawing negative inferences from the gothic, immoderate, impassioned prose, the residue of Hedges' righteous passion is but offal reeking of hysterical and hyperbolic nihilism-- narcissistic soliloquy. He is too much the anti-Pangloss.
As one entirely unencumbered by the Roundhead sensibility, I enjoyed Hedges' article very much; it has the ring of truth. I welcome a sober, truthful voice like his.
William F. Buckley lives!
Alan MacDonald
Hedges quotes that, "depressions, wars and totalitarianism grow out of a so-called self-regulated free market."
I fully agree with Chris and often note that, "'free market' ideology which allows the well known 'market-failure' of 'negative externality cost dumping' to be 'gamed' is nothing but 'free looting'".
Change begins with us, not Washington. FORGET the politicians and concentrate on your local circle of survival. Washington can no longer help you, they do not know you exist.
Mr. Hedges does a great job of describing his and our worst fears about this current whirlwind of crises... all predictable, all preventable.
Perhaps.
There is a level of meaning that was accessible to us all during the past forty years, or at least to those who did not allow the hyperbole of the hour to block their deeper hearing: from the resurgence of the atmosphere of legitimacy that sank around the darkest actions of our elected officials for all manner of corrupted and murderous adventures to keep the dollar omnipotent and omniscient, to the families swept away, dropped into the ocean to protect the profits of fruit and coffee, tin and copper companies; from the holocaust of wars against the innocent through the use of advanced incendiary weaponry and torture to protect our guzzling of minerals under others people's yards, to the feeding of the banking Morlochs out of the pocket books of our parents' and our old age security and health, we have consistently turned our better selves away from what we knew was occurring right before our eyes: we allowed it.
We were suckered into the two party party again and again as it transformed into the ultimate conduit of wealth into the pockets of the already wealthy from the world's poorest, those least attached to the wheels of how all of this was scripted and acted out. We are guilty. And we are now terrified of becoming victims of the actions that we are largely responsible for setting into motion. We allowed it to occur.
Still... nightmares the likes of which Mr. Hedges describes that we are, perhaps, all waking into these days, are rarely without their saving graces; rarely as bad as their worse surreal juxtapositions and dizzying transformations threaten to be. For one thing, we are built to adjust to even the most terrible circumstances. Viktor Frankl, the psychotherapist who survived years in Auschwitz, built the framework of his entire psychology from that notion. "Everyone has their own Auschwitz" he said. And he knew these nightmares are not easy, and people die in them, but we also survive and create our own individual matrixes of meaning because of them... in spite of them.
So relax. Just a little. Find something to do that delivers you from your own fear. If only for a while. You'll need whatever distances from fear and trepidation these little exercises in breathing and seeing beyond your most frightening visions to guide you in the months ahead. Maybe your vision will require less expense to be made real. Maybe some part of some great joy you had left behind in your quest to get ahead will re-appear to you.
Be careful not to call the worst into being. Laugh a little. People like Sarah Palin may command some serious attention... but they are also hilarious. Just think of all the great comedy we have ahead of us.
Besides... even if the worst of Hedges' nightmare comes to be, we are naturally endowed with the will and the ways to persevere. And we will. Great art will be born. Sex will get better. People will stop taking Prozac for being angry and depressed about things they should be angry and depressed about. Something will happen. They cannot take your soul. Your money, yes... your home?... perhaps; but not your spirit.
I'm going to work hard to remain unattached to depression caused by the, ah... Depression. It won't always be easy. But it's the only tool I've got. And, in a pinch, its better than money
I'll laugh easier when Frau Palin is back in Wacky Alasky!
So because of the dislike the TV has engendered in you for someone you've NEVER MET, you disparage an entire State and its people?
Nice.
Chris,
Ralph Nader?! As John McEnroe would say "You can't be serious!" Good grief! How about Lyndon Larouche again? Snoopy? Pat Paulsen? Or is that too close to Treas. Sec. Paulsen? How about some of the crazy candidates from the California gubernatorial race: Gary Coleman, porn star Mary Carey, Arnold Swartzenegger?
Look, Chris, this is a race where the 2 leaders are Obama and McCain. Now, if, as your article states, you give a damn about fascism, then a vote for Nader in this close race is really a vote for McCain. McCain has proven how much he values a democracy by choosing right wingnut Palin and her Alaskan Independence Party husband. Palin is Dubya in a dress while McCain is a total sell-out and would sell America out too for the right price. Speaking of pay-offs, how much has Nader pocketed from Dubya for spoiling the past 2 elections? Did he get 1 or 2% of the vote then? Can he sleep at night knowing that he's caused the deaths of over 4,100 American soldiers and thousands of innocent Iraqis? Can you?
Stop this insanity that Bush has created! McSame/Wailin' would do it even worse.
Vote for Obama so we can put Bush/Cheney/Rove, etc., in jail where they belong.
sorry, double post
bluemama,
Comparing Nader to Snoopy or Pat Paulson gives your argument about as much credibility as comparing apples to Twinkies.
The two "leaders" Obama and McCain are leaders only in the sense that they have the biggest checkbooks to buy the media they needed that then declared them to be the "2 leaders" based on polls financed by media and the 2 leaders so that folks like you would support them BECAUSE they are the 2 leaders based on etc,etc.etc. And the money to buy the media that then declared them etc, etc. came from the big corporations who needed them to be the 2 leaders because they were the most corporate friendly. For good measure, the Media and the Dems decided to tattoo the "can't win" label on Nader's forehead so that, just in case folks ever got a chance to listen to Nader and realize how much sense he made, they would, nevertheless, not vote for him, because this absurd tactic, sadly enough, has worked ever so well in the past.
If these two guys are our "2 leaders", heaven help us because the only place they will be leading us is over the cliff.
If Obama is so much better than McCain, why is this a "close race"? Or is it a "close race" because the same media who declared them to be the 2 leaders tell us it is?
Causing the deaths of over 4,000 soldiers and innocent Iraqis? Baloney. Bush and his Dem enablers, including your man Obama who continued to vote for war funding, were responsible for that. Nader would have never voted for that stuff. Nader as responsible for Bush? I don't think so - I suggest you blame George, Sr and Barbara for that one. Nader responsible for Bush as Pres.? I don't think so - blame Sandra Day O'connor and the others on the Supr. Ct. for that one. I hope when you vote for Obama you realize that you will have the deaths of thousands of innocent Afghanis and ?Pakistanis on your head.
And seriously, do you think an Obama win will put Bush in jail? Mr. Bipartisan Obama put a Rep. in jail? Remember, he wants to "work with them", not put them in jail. Heaven help us. Every time a Dem pledges to "work with" the Reps, it means the Reps get what they want and we all get screwed. Remember, Clinton was one of the best Rep. pres. of the century.
The tone of your post (?and your name?) suggest that you are a genetic Dem. Out of curiosity, is there any Dem you wouldn't pick over Nader? Lieberman? Zell Miller? Anybody?
And how, pray tell, other than both being public figures, is Nader like Snoopy? This, I gotta hear ....
For one, Ralph looks a good bit like Snoopy. Actually, I think Snoopy got more votes in one election than Ralph got in 2.
Doggone it, folks, if we're looking at the real issues and who was the best candidate then Dennis Kucinich should be our next President. But facing reality is painful but necessary, youbetcha. If you want to hear cutesy, folksy Palinisms for the next year then vote for McCain/Nader. Palin's "end times" crowd is too anxious for the rapture. They don't want to wait that long. Big things will be happening before the 4 year term is up. Maybe you all will be safe on Ralph's spaceship.
Wow, I never would have guessed you were a Kucinich fan! So was I. So it was a no brainer for me to switch to Nader. Same platform. I think if Kucinich had won, Nader wouldn't have run - it's not about Nader, not even for him. It's about the platform. Progressive politics has to be thought of as a relay race, you cheer for the guy holding the baton even if he doesn't have the same letter on his sweatshirt. Kucinich had the baton to pass, Obama let it drop (or never held it at all), Nader picked it up.
How could a Kucinich fan switch to Obama? Obama, who didn't say boo when Kucinich was kept out of the debates. Obama, who will not support a) defunding the war and bringing ALL the troops home b) HR 676 or Medicare for all c) impeaching Bush/Cheney, need I go on? All of which Kucinich has passionately fought for and Nader supports.
I don't get it, But then again I didn't get how people could march against the war in '03 and vote for Kerry in '04, or March in Seattle in '99 and vote for Gore in '00.
Can't you see that this dedication to Dems-even-when-they-are-lousy is not only killing the Dem party, it's killing us as well? They are imploding and taking us down with them.
This country will get nowhere until it stops being about "the Party"
Hmmm, McCain/Nader, interesting ticket. Too bad McCain didn't think of it, but I don't think Ralph would have agreed. I don't think he would have agreed to Nader/McCain, either. In fact, I don't think he agrees with McCain much at all, so what makes you put them on the same ticket? Nope, sorry, don't buy that one. A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader, not for somebody else. If Nader weren't available to vote for, I wouldn't vote for Obama or McCain. I'm through with voting for those who don't represent me and have been for some time, no matter what team letters they're wearing. The problems we have here now are because too many people too often voted for folks they didn't really like in order to keep other folks out, so that, even if they won, they would lose.
So now, I'm even more curious. If a Kucinich fan could not only vote for, but proselytize for, Obama, is there ANY Dem you WOULDN'T vote for?
I agree that facing reality is painful but necessary. I faced the reality some time ago that "my" party had pretty much abandoned me. Yes, it was painful, but I have moved on. I suggest you do the same, or there will be many more "close elections" between "scary" Reps and gawd awful Dems. What a great future to look forward to. Good heavens, what HAS this country come to? Downright depressing, ain't it? Thank heavens for Ralph!
PS -I do like Ralph, but I must admit I think Snoopy is cuter.
bluemama writes, "...Look, Chris, this is a race where the 2 leaders are Obama and McCain..."
Oh, is that how it works?
- What would you do if the Dems were running McCain, and the Repubs were running Giuliani or Romney? (Recall that McCain very nearly ran as Kerry's VP in 2004, so it's not that far-fetched.)
How about if the Dems were running Joe Lieberman, and the Repubs were running McCain? (Recall that Lieberman was Gore's VP in 2000, and very nearly McCain's VP this year.)
How about if the Dems were running Mussolini, and the Repubs were running Hitler? (In that case, those two would still be the only "viable candidates.")
RichM
Out here in the real world the only candidates with a chance of winning the Presidential election are Obama and McCain.
You can vote for one of them or you can let others decide.
Your choice.
Sorry, Repubs are already running "Mooselini" Palin.
bluemama's rebuttal to Aquifer and RichM and Bayani:
"Mooselini"
Why bother with someone employing that level of debate?
Is anyone convinced by her play-on-words?
Aquifer and RichM and Bayani raised valid points that deserve clear responses.
Oh, I guess, only boys are allowed to have clever comments.
I thought it was clear.
Aquifer and RichM and Bayani raised valid points that deserve clear responses.
How about it?
I don't care if you play with your words in ways that you consider clever. Just offer a real response.
If you engage people in a discussion, and then flippantly talk gibberish when you can't handle their rebuttals, then you are behaving like a hit a run spammer.
Go to top of the thread. I've clearly explained things for you all.
If you have any more questions, please ask there. Let's move on.
bluemama,
Here's the "explanation" you posted Prior to the comments made in this thread.
You compare Nader to Snoopy and porn star among others.
You assert "this is a race where the 2 leaders are Obama and McCain."
Then you claim (without even a trace of ironic self awareness) that to vote for anyone except Obama is supporting fascism.
Then you try to sell an insult as a conspiracy theory by wondering "how much has Nader pocketed from Dubya for spoiling the past 2 elections?"
Not satisfied that you've stooped low enough, you then blame him (and his supporters) for every single death in the entire Iraq War.
And then close with a bold faced lie, that despite the indisputable fact that Obama has consistently opposed impeachment, you urge people to "vote for Obama so we can put Bush/Cheney/Rove, etc., in jail where they belong."
When challenged by several other posters, instead of responding, you decide that we should all "move on." How appropriate.
Incidentally, Bluemamma, get your facts straight about Nader and the elections. Come back and debate when you have done the research. Forget the assumptions and what you've heard. I can't be bothered doing the work for you....you are way off course. Good luck.
McCain or Obama can't shine Nader's shoes. He's done 10 times more for the citizens of the US than these two corporate lackies.
Nader HAS done things but has lost credibility, respect and dignity just like McCain.
Uh, I just don't think so.
How?
By putting their egos first and the aphrodisiac of power a close second.
Nader is the Ross Perot of the millenium elections. Does Nader have the same VP?
"By putting their egos first and the aphrodisiac of power a close second."
How?
From whence comes the "ego first"? Can you give me an example? One similarity I see with Perot, is that they are both highly intelligent and truly patriotic beings not answering to corporate masters. The only need for power I see in Nader would be to use his power for the common good....as he has done many times previously. The same VP?