Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiNeeded for This Election: A Great Rejection
It could be a start -- a clear national rejection of the extreme right-wing brew that has saturated the executive branch for nearly eight years.
What's emerging for Election Day is a common front against the dumbed-down demagoguery that's now epitomized and led by John McCain and Sarah Palin.
A large margin of victory over the McCain-Palin ticket, repudiating what it stands for, is needed -- and absolutely insufficient. It's a start along a long uphill climb to get this country onto a course that approximates sanity.
McCain's only real hope is to achieve the election equivalent of drawing an inside straight -- capturing the electoral votes of some key swing states by slim margins. His small window of possible victory is near closing. Progressives should help to slam it shut.
Like it or not, the scale of a national rejection of McCain-Palin and Bush would be measured -- in terms of state power and perceived political momentum -- along a continuum that ranges from squeaker to landslide. It's in the interests of progressives for the scale to be closer to landslide than squeaker.
As McCain's strategists aim to thread an electoral-vote needle, it cannot be said with certainty that they will fail. Who can credibly declare that an aggregate of anti-democratic factors -- such as purged voting rolls, onerous requirements for voter ID, imposed obstacles to voting that target people of color, inequities in distribution of voting machines, not counting some votes as they are cast, anti-Obama racism and other factors -- could not combine to bring a "victory" resulting in a President McCain and a Vice President Palin come Jan. 20, 2009?
Under these circumstances, the wider the real margin for Obama over McCain, the less likely that McCain can claim sufficient electoral votes to become president.
Progressives are mostly on board with the Obama campaign, even though -- on paper, with his name removed -- few of his positions deserve the "progressive" label. We shouldn't deceive ourselves into seeing Obama as someone he's not. Yet an Obama presidency offers the possibilities that persistent organizing and coalition-building at the grassroots could be effective at moving national policy in a progressive direction. In contrast, a McCain presidency offers possibilities that are extremely grim.
Some progressives, as a matter of principle, have come to a different conclusion. They're eager to cast their votes for a presidential candidate (Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney) who can't win.
Of course people's votes are entirely their own, to do with as they see fit. But the right to do something is distinct from the wisdom of doing it.
Last week, a mass email from the Nader for President 2008 campaign began by telling supporters: "Ralph Nader is at 5 percent in The Show Me State -- Missouri. And he's moving up. That's according to the most recent CNN/Time Missouri poll." The celebratory tone of the message was notable. Nader was polling at 5 percent in a crucial swing state -- where polls showed that McCain and Obama were in a dead heat. No wonder, on the same day as the email message, McCain spoke at rallies in suburbs of St. Louis and Kansas City.
Nader's potential effect on the election may be too small to increase the chances of a McCain victory. But from all indications, even if McCain and Obama were tied in polls across the country, the Nader campaign would be proceeding as it is now. What does that tell us about the logic of pressing forward with a vanguard approach even if it might serve the interests of right-wing forces that most progressives are straining to roll back in this election?
From the 1960s through the '90s, Ralph Nader had an unparalleled record of fighting for progressive reform. But the 2008 campaign of Nader and running-mate Matt Gonzalez has a frozen-in-time quality. Their campaign makes an electoral argument that focuses largely on Democrats, not Republicans. Much of Nader's pitch for votes is centering on the charge that Democrats are as corporate and compromised as ever -- and in many ways he's right. But he ignores the reality that Republican leaders keep getting worse and more right-wing; they are clearly more dangerous than many assumed a decade ago.
The historical trend is clear: Bush-Cheney have been further right and more reckless than even Newt Gingrich, who was further right than Ronald Reagan, who was further right than his Republican predecessors. And Palin speaks for herself.
My former co-author Jeff Cohen puts it this way: "Focusing on Democratic corruption is not the problem. The problem is developing an electoral strategy that fails to acknowledge how increasingly extremist Republicans are. It reminds me of that George Carlin joke: ‘Here's a partial score from the West Coast -- Dodgers 5.' An electoral strategy has to assess the current positions of BOTH teams."
At this point, is an Obama victory a cinch? Maybe not. Consider this New York Times reporting published on Oct. 24: "Pollsters say there has never been a year when polling has been so problematic, given the uncertainty of who is going to vote in what is shaping up as an electorate larger than ever. While most national polls give Mr. Obama a relatively comfortable lead, in many statewide polls, Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain are much more closely matched. Even a small shift in the national number could deliver some of the closer states into the McCain camp, making an Electoral College victory at least possible."
In fact, it's possible that Obama could win a clear victory in the popular vote while McCain manages to claim enough electoral votes to move into the White House. Crucial to such an outcome would be Missouri (which, as the Times notes, "has been a bellwether in every White House race during the last century except 1956"). Is taking that risk worth the satisfaction of getting a couple percent of the vote for Ralph Nader for president in 2008?
The Nader campaign actually seems to be gunning for swing states in the stretch drive of the campaign, as if to maximize the chances that the Nader-Gonzalez ticket could be a factor in how the electoral votes end up being divided. Last week the Nader campaign announced that, beginning on Oct. 28, "Mr. Nader will make his final rounds campaigning in traditional swing states Florida, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania."
All year, the Nader campaign has been asking rhetorical questions such as (in the words of an Oct. 22 press advisory): "Why is it that so-called liberals and progressives continue to support Democratic candidates like Obama whose campaign slogans and rhetoric do not match their stated positions and voting records?"
And: "Why do we progressives continue to delude ourselves that we stand for core, liberal values and then work for candidates who demonstrate that they have no commitment to these values?"
This fall, the answers to these largely valid questions revolve around a truth that trumps many others: A McCain-Palin administration would be such a disaster that we want to do what we can to prevent it.
When I've spoken to dozens of audiences during the two months since the Democratic National Convention (where I was an elected Obama delegate), there's been an overwhelmingly positive response when I make a simple statement about Obama and the prospects of an Obama presidency: "The best way to avoid becoming disillusioned is to not have illusions in the first place."
Looking past the election, progressives will need to mobilize for a comprehensive agenda including economic justice, guaranteed healthcare for all, civil liberties, environmental protection and demilitarization.
The forces arrayed against far-reaching progressive change are massive and unrelenting. If an Obama victory is declared next week, those forces will be regrouping in front of our eyes -- with right-wing elements looking for backup from corporate and pro-war Democrats. How much leverage these forces exercise on an Obama presidency would heavily depend on the extent to which progressives are willing and able to put up a fight.
It's a fight we should welcome.
393 Comments so far
Show Allnice post truthie,
if Nader wasn't black balled by the media, and the debates, it would be real interesting to see how high his numbers would be right now. As for everyone else saying my Nader vote is a wasted vote, just like in the past, four years from now when everybody is screaming about how bad it is, at least I can say I didn't contribute to this mess. That will lay with all the people voting for the bailout boys. And whoever said all bets will be off after the election. You couldn't be more correct on that statement. If obama or maccain takes office, every promise they made will be forgotten within six months
Here is the link to Joshua Frank's response to Solomon's bluster as it appears on Counterpunch.
http://www.counterpunch.org/frank10302008.html
Here are three paragraphs that I thought were pertinent:
So let's prepare for what's ahead. Obama may win next Tuesday, but what will happen to the movements that have been sidelined in order to help get the Democrats elected? What will become of the environmental movement after January 20? Will it step up to oppose Obama's quest for nuclear power and clean coal? Will the antiwar movement work to force Obama to take a softer approach toward Iran? Will they stop the troop increase in Afghanistan?
These are but a few of the questions I'd like progressive supporters of Obama to answer. I've yet to hear exactly how they will pressure an Obama administration. In fact, I don't think they will. George W. Bush will be gone and that will be enough for most. Progressives faced a similar confrontation in 1992 when Bill Clinton took office, but without much of a fight we saw neoliberalism take hold in the form of NAFTA and we endured the Telecommunications Act, Welfare Reform, a forest plan written by the logging industry, the dismantling of Glass-Steagall, the Iraq Liberation Act, and much much more.
What makes the Democrats believe that they even deserve our support now? President Bush has indeed been bad, but his most egregious policies were upheld and supported by the majority of Democrats. They gave Bush the green light to whack Saddam while they controlled the Senate. They supported the PATRIOT Act (Obama voted for its reconfirmation), the War on Terror, Bush's increased Pentagon budget, a no-strings Wall Street bailout and two awful Supreme Court confirmations. You may also remember that two years ago we ushered Democrats back into office with the belief that they might actually fight Bush on Iraq. Instead we've had nothing but complicity, with Democrats time and again supporting increased war funds.
hey, check out this article on Counterpunch, which CommonDreams declined to print:
Support Obama, and Vote McKinney? Not a contradiction
The women of color running for President & Vice President.
http://www.counterpunch.org/chew10292008.html
McKinney / Clemente all the way!
Norman says, "...How much leverage these forces exercise on an Obama presidency would heavily depend on the extent to which progressives are willing and able to put up a fight..." Sorry to disagree, but once the vote is cast, all power of the people is lost. It is too late to try to change things after an election. I am really sorry to say this, but this article left a lot to be desired.
Any voter who votes with the hope of changing things AFTER an election, should stay home on election day.
I agree Rosemarie. The major party candidates are of the use-them-and-abuse category. Once Obama is in power all bets are off. Liberals and Progressives will complain for 4 more years and then come back and do the same thing all over again.
quizmasterchris October 28th, 2008 11:25 am wrote:
"Will you be volunteering for Obama's 90,000 troop increase, or are you a chickenhawk like Wolfowitz and Limbaugh?
When 90,000 Obama supporters volunteer for Afghanistan infantry I'll start respecting your consistency, if not your warmongering disregard for life and law."
How old are you? Who the hell are you to ask me if I'm a chickenhawk, ask if I'm like Wolfowitz and Limbaugh?! Are you a Vet, or did you protest the Vietnam war in the streets, while facing the draft without the benefit of a college deferment, like I did? Did you apply for conscientious objector status like I did (I didn't receive it), and take your chances, or did you run away to Canada? Or are you just a punk with a draft card, in a time when there's no draft?
I don't give damn who's elected, whether it's Obama, McCain, Nader, Barr, or freakin' Donald Duck, no war is going to end on inauguration day. And whoever is elected president will have blood on their hands, including Nader. That comes with the territory, and anybody seriously running for president knows that.
What really irks me about the majority of Nader supporters (that have posted here) is this "my way or the highway" attitude. I truly wish you luck in your lives, because you will most assuredly be frustrated till the ends of your days.
Idealism is good, to a point. Just don't expect those of us who have given up on tilting at windmills to willingly return to suffering from myopia.
One more thing, then I'll go away because I have better things to do than argue with brick walls. Do any of you "True Progressives" have loans of any kind for property, homes, tuition, etc.? Any 401Ks, IRAs, savings accounts, stocks, etc.? Do you pay your taxes? Do you own, or even just drive, a vehicle that runs on any type of fuel? If you answer yes to any of the above, you are supporting the so-called "war machine" that you're always raging on about, and accusing others of being a part of.
To quote songwriter Eugene McDaniel (not the same person as Ellas McDaniel, aka Bo Diddley):
"Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself."
quizmasterchris wrote: "I don't give damn who's elected, whether it's Obama, McCain, Nader, Barr, or freakin' Donald Duck, no war is going to end on inauguration day. And whoever is elected president will have blood on their hands, including Nader. That comes with the territory, and anybody seriously running for president knows that."
Talk about a lame attempt at obfuscation this one takes the cake.
Ralph Nader didn't start the Iraq War. George w. Bush did with the help of his friend Barack Obama who voted for it and Nancy Pelosi who funded it and ran interference for Bush like a good hand maiden. THEY ARE THE ONES WITH BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS !
Nader is the only candidate that has given a concrete timetable for withrawal from Iraq. Elect Obama and in late January we will he choruses from 1600 Pennsylvania that will be earily similar to what came from Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1966. "I inherited this situation !" "I'm up to my neck in this mess !"
BTW William F. Buckley's assesment of LBJ was correct. He was Uncle Cornball ! That was the only thing Buckley ever got right !
quizmasterchris wrote: "What really irks me about the majority of Nader supporters (that have posted here) is this "my way or the highway" attitude. I truly wish you luck in your lives, because you will most assuredly be frustrated till the ends of your days."
The fact of the matter is the DemocRATS have never given a wit of respect for Nader's positions for the last 3 Campaigns and resorted to illegal means to sabotage the 2004 Campaign. Your damn right it's "my way or the highway". We are pushing for it all !
BTW did you hear that there will be another 3rd Party Debate Tomorrow hosted by the Commonwealth Club of Cleveland at 4:30 PM EDT ? Nader, Baldwin and Barr are confirmed with invitations extended to McKinney, Obama and McCain.
nice post truthie,
if Nader wasn't black balled by the media, and the debates, it would be real interesting to see how high his numbers would be right now. As for everyone else saying my Nader vote is a wasted vote, just like in the past, four years from now when everybody is screaming about how bad it is, at least I can say I didn't contribute to this mess. That will lay with all the people voting for the bailout boys. And whoever said all bets will be off after the election. You couldn't be more correct on that statement. If obama or maccain takes office, every promise they made will be forgotten within six months.
"his friend Barack Obama who voted for it"
No. He came out against the war before it was waged. When he voted in the Senate it was for continued funding of the troops in the field. He also voted for a timeline to end the war, which was vetoed by our President. The last time, Obama even voted against the funding.
If Obama voted against the war, now he wants to escalate it, he is a very scary person indeed. Possibly insane.
McCain was for it and continues to be for it.
Nader was against it, and continues to be against it.
In other words, he voted for it! Voting to keep funding a war is voting to continue it. He still supports keeping combat troops in Iraq pretty much indefinitely, just at somewhat reduced numbers because he wants to shift some troops to Afghanistan and escalate that war. He also wants to increase military spending. He has not proposed withdrawing the tens of thousands of troops in Iraq who are not in direct combat roles, or the private security forces such as Blackwater.
Some Democrats such as Obama and Clinton voted against the Iraq war funding the last time who had not previously done so, but Obama and Clinton were in the middle of their primary campaign and it was clear that it was going to pass anyway.
Which is more important, the fact that Obama said that the war was a "mistake" (no mention of it being an immoral and illegal war of aggression) before he was a Senator, or the fact that he has voted to keep it going since he has been one?
madcow wrote: "He also voted for a timeline to end the war, which was vetoed by our President."
Then why doesn't Obama outline a withdrawal plan now and feature it as part of his campaign ? Unless of course his original vote was nothing more than a tactical measure used to turn the issue into a political football.
He has a withdrawal plan.
Nixon had a withdrawal plan from Vietnam too !
Remember the "Secret Plan" that stole McGovern's Thunder in the 1972 Campaign. Tricky Dick's plan turned out to be bomb North Vietnam into the Stone Age. Obama's plan is to ship the troops to Afghanistan.
Some Withdrawal Plan !
Excellent!
Plain and simple, voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. George Washington's farewell address at the end of his second term warned against allowing political parties get too much power. For about 150 years now, the Republican and Democratic parties have held far too much power and they have been steadily dragging the rest of us down with them. It's time to break the strangle hold that they have on our federal government, not just with the presidential race, but in congress as well.
In recent national elections, the news has reported voter turnout of 40% of registered voters. Where are the other 60%? They sit at home in disgust because they have believed the moronic rhetoric of this article. The two main parties control who gets to be part of their debates through the fraudulent requirements set up by the Commission on Presidential Debates (chaired by former directors of both parties), and the laziness of the general public allows the media to filter information for us. If it isn't on TV, too many of us don't even know about it.
Of the 40% that voted in the last two presidential elections, it has been reported that about 20% (8% of all registered voters) voted for a 3rd party candidate. The rest were very nearly evenly divided among the two main party candidates. This means that about 16% of all registered voters decided that Georgw W. Bush would be our president for four years - TWICE. If 16% can do that, what do you think 25% could do for Nader or Baldwin? It is time for change that is more than just a name and a face. Our elected officals do not run the government, they are directed by their party leadership - and those people are not elected, they are appointed according to the special interest agenda of whoever gives the most money to the party.
Every year that the Republicans and Democrats are allowed to maintain their stranglehold on our country's government is another year closer to an armed conflict. I'd like to avoid that if I can. Will you help me?
Wrap your head around this:
Neither Barack Obama or John McCain are "evil" men.
They are both good men. Good men may make questionable choices, but that does not make them evil. When we label things "good" or "evil", we are speaking no differently than Osama Bin Laden or George W. Bush.
I'm choosing Obama because I feel he is best able, of the two (or any other candidate), to take us where I think we need to go and inspire the nation as a whole. If Ralph Nader hasn't yet inspired this nation, beyond a small loyal base, in his long, dedicated, and, IMO, patriotic years of being a watchdog and ultimate gadfly (in the most positive definition of that word), what makes you think he can inspire it now, more than he already, admittedly, has?
I'm choosing Obama, in my view, the better of two "good" men.
silvacine October 28th, 2008 2:13 pm
"a large contingent of the population calls [Obama] 'socialist,' and...it seems to stick - as does the "horror" of the redistribution of wealth"
Evidence? That a "large contingent of the population" now "calls" him a socialist? Evidence that the label is sticking - changing votes - vs. one more desperate, last ditch twist in negative campaigning? Evidence that trying to horrify people over Obama's piddling "redistribution of wealth" is working. Don't think so.
"Here in North Carolina, if I voted for a a third party candidate, I would be one more vote for McCain....But if you're the 5 percent of Nader supporters in Missouri, you're shooting yourself in the foot if you vote for him in 2008."
Two tossup states - this supports voting for Nader except in swing situations, on grounds that strengthening left-of-Democrat exit polls would give a Democratic President room to run at the left edge of the politically possible, and counteract 'country is moving to center' Democratic Leadership Committee justifications for running right.
This article is ridiculous. It's just more of the "let's vote for Obama because he's not as bad as McCain" bull that we've been receiving for years already. The author even states that he doesn't like Obama. When I vote, I want to choose the candidate that I support. I'm not voting against someone, or voting out of fear. I'm voting FOR someone. The only person 'stealing' votes in this election is Obama, because we're constantly told by people like Mr. Solomon that if we vote for a third party we're somehow a bad person.
Just imagine if all the writers and television hosts actually supported the candidate that reflects their true "progressive" values (Ralph Nader), Nader would get elected. Then we'd actually get real change in Washington.
I know that voting for Obama will not produce any of the positive results I'm looking for out of the president, so I won't be throwing away my vote to him out of fear of John McCain. Give me a break. I'll be voting for a candidate that will represent me, and that is Ralph Nader.
Mr. Solomon said it best himself:
"...few of his positions deserve the "progressive" label. We shouldn't deceive ourselves into seeing Obama as someone he's not."
This gist of his article is that progressives should vote out of fear, not for someone that represents their values. He says that a third party candidate cannot win. That will be true as long as everyone always votes out of fear, and as long as the two corporate controlled parties control the air waves and debates. Giving your vote to the least of two bad choices makes it easy for that candidate to ignore your values and take your vote for granted. Their only mandate will be to do the bidding of the largest donors (Goldman Sachs, etc.).
Mr. Solomon assumes that Ralph Nader only pulls in Democratic voters. This is far from the truth. Polls in the last few months have consistently shown that Mr. Nader pulls more votes from Republican voters.
Mr. Solomon goes on to say:
"Looking past the election, progressives will need to mobilize for a comprehensive agenda including economic justice, guaranteed healthcare for all, civil liberties, environmental protection and demilitarization."
That is right, because Obama's agenda will not provide much, if any of these. Why not vote for the candidate that has a better agenda? That candidate is Ralph Nader. What is going to happen is that there is going to be a great disillusionment by voters after the Democrats take complete control, setting the stage for a huge Republican comeback. This cycle MUST be broken.
Just imagine if Nader were elected. Now that would be a true mandate for real progressive change that would be hard for our representatives to ignore. Even if Nader does not win, getting a large percentage will show the Democrats that they are way off base and need to enact more Progressive solutions. Instead of just talking the talk they need to also walk the walk.
There are more non-affiliated voters than registered Democrats and Republicans combined. Why do we allow them to choose the two candidates that are allowed to Debate in mainstream media? Combined they have spent $1.6 BILLION on the campaign so far, and it is expected to reach $2.4 BILLION! This is simply ludicrous. See Amy Goodman's article "Change Big Donor's Can Believe in":
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081022_change_big_donors_can_believe_in/.
What is Desperately Needed is campaign reform that stops corporate contributions, opens the debates, and that provides free air time for all ballot qualified candidates.
I Greatly Reject Norman Solomon's article.
Excellent!
There is only one thing Norman got right here, and that is that we need a "great rejection."
We need "great rejection" of both Obama and McCain. We need a "great rejection" of the one-party system with two right wings, that every four years coughs up "candidates" like these.
Actually, "rejection" is not the right word. "Purge" would be better.
Note to Norm...I just put all of your books in my collection in the pile by the fireplace. Winter is coming, so they'll be put to good use very soon.
Gee. It sure is easy for a Democrat to make an argument to vote for a Democrat but it takes real ignorance to think those who aren't Democrats actually will follow the same logic. When you can only see one viewpoint, I think they call that shallow not educated. It's Nader for me.
Nader calls out Solomon.
http://www.votenader.org/blog/2008/10/28/solomon-v-greider/
Nader gets in the little weasel's face !
I love it !
Excellent again!
Norm Solomon is not a weasle. He has a different take on it. And he doesn't malign us for supporting Nader. Norm has done a lot of good work for us, from his steadfast anti-nuke activism in the 70s to his years of work as media watchdog. He's done more than many of us put together. He's on our side. Remain united ... my friends :)
and vote Nader, 08!
Solomon is not on our side !
Solomon is on the side that is scheming at this very moment to up-end the Single Payer Health Care movement.
Solomon is on the side that equivocates on the Iraq War and wants to ramp up the war in Afghanistan.
He is one of a class of writers who perpetrates a cruel hoax on his followers. He writes all sorts of books pontificating on progressive issues, for which he is handsomely compensated, and when Election Time comes around he shills for his buddies in the DemocRAT Party in the process trashing everything he has written. Election Cycle after Election Cycle we can count on Norman Solomon to spew forth on how we should lower our expectations and accept our conditions. Solomon's drivel isn't the solution...it's part of the problem ! The fact of the matter is Solomon has become part of the stodgy media he claims to be a critic of !
He isn't a weasel he is a low down dirty slug !
I'm voting for Nader. My wife is voting for Nader. Norm you and yours vote for whomever you want. I respect a lot of the articles you've written in the past but I just physically get ill when people on the left feel the need to tell others not to vote for someone (Nader) who espouses their views and to vote for someone who is seems to be very similar to the republican candidate.
Like I've said in other postings as well, I would happily have voted "Kucinich" but hey the Democrats didn't even allow him to debate with Hillary or Barack. Why the ____should I vote for people simply because ABC News and Budweiser have decided that they should be the only ones allowed to participate.
Normon, I hope you read this and reconsider writing articles inciting "fear" when it comes to voting for a third party. You don't want to go to bed 1 year from now when war is still waging in the middle east, poverty is off the charts, healthcare is still tooooo expensive and we are bailing out fat cats with money that should be going to schools, healthcare for all, do you?
Ralph Nader focuses on real solutions
By Mike Spector • October 28, 2008
This is not the most important election of our lifetime simply because the major tickets consist of a smooth young black man whose foreign policy is to kill less in Iraq and more in Afghanistan, vying against a shell-shocked former prisoner from a previous American war with a Betty Boop of the tundra running mate.
If voters are seriously interested in solutions, and if the corporations who control the media would provide a civic platform for all presidential candidates, it becomes apparent that the only candidate who provides meaningful solutions to our national despondency is Ralph Nader.
True, he's 74, and has run several times before, most successfully on the Green Party line in 2000 garnering 2.8 million votes.
But please don't put him in that pine box quite yet. If one could manage to listen to him, or just visit his web site: votenader.com, the ideas still resonate with a brilliance that puts the other pretenders to shame.
As current as he is insightful, Nader travels the 45 states with his name and that of Matt Gonzalez on the ballot, labeling the recent Wall Street bailout, a "gross misplacement of priorities by the federal government," favoring instead a national public works program to "renovate, repair and upgrade" our infrastructure including schools, health clinics, bridges, public transportation, libraries and preserving our drinking water.
Such programs he believes would put average people back to work while attacking the nation's fiscal crisis from the ground up, rather then the top down approach of aiding the nations' private financial network.
Mainstream candidates have not had to answer tough questions because the media and the parties do not want them addressed. What's lost in the process are peace advocacy, consumer protection, workers and taxpayers' rights and a single-payer universal healthcare system.
At this late date it is unlikely that John McCain and Barack Obama will start addressing specific issues the American people really care about.
Nader on the other hand is all issues, a man who cares deeply enough about our future to continue running for the nation's highest office.
Spoiler? Who's a spoiler? It's a term mistakenly assigned to him in 2000, but every person who casts a vote is essentially spoiling it for someone else. Progressives who view Obama as the new kid on the block offering "change" should really be asking themselves if this is an illusion born out of despair.
A Nader vote, however, is an affirmation of the nation's founding constitutional principles at a time when our political and economic system borders on insolvency.
Ralph Nader announced concrete plans for what to do after November 4th back when his exploratory committee came out near the beginning of the year. He said he wanted to have congressional watchdog groups in every congressional district to turn Congress around. Whether this plan will become reality just depends on whether you and me are willing to support it and get involved. If you haven't seen it, I pasted the announcement his exploratory committee put out here: http://betterthannader.blogspot.com/2008/05/looking-past-november-watchdogs-and.html
We need to start paying more attention to Ralph Nader. He's been warning us about the things that caused this economic crisis for decades and that's documented quite well. He also has solutions for the crisis now, but instead of listening to Nader we keep putting the arsonists in charge of the fire station.
When we're stuck in wars that have killed over 1.5 million innocent people, the economy is in shambles, and the Constitution is being gutted--well, I take that as a sign that it's way past time we need to draw a line and stop supporting either of the parties that got us into such a mess!
--
http://betterthannader.blogspot.com
If you don't vote for what you believe in, you are throwing your vote away.
There are plenty of reasons why Obama is not acceptable: Sucking up to Israel and allow Palestinan rights to be destroyed, NAFTA, nuclear power, his warlike stance on Pakistan and Afghanistan, his sucking up to bankers and the bailout, his taking bankruptcy reform off the table as part of the bailout, his trashing Reverend Wright and mischaracterizing what he said, his pandering tax cuts throwing us into greater debt, his "clean coal" charade.... Corporate Obama is not fit to be president nor is Corporate McCain.
Voting for the lesser evil is vote for evil.
I will not let anyone, in any election year, tell me who to vote for! Interestingly, most nations, whatever style of governance, have, and encourage multiple parties to participate in all elections. In Iraq 20 or so parties vie for influence, and, ironically, the U.S. Occupiers court and encourage them all! It is obvious to anyone able to get their head away from corrupting and misinforming television, that the American electorate is being duped big-time by the corporate media that profit hugely from this style of exclusionary politics. Enough voting for lesser evil every four years! My vote goes to candidates, like Ralph Nader, who have the courage to flip the bird to Wall St., and represent the people, not the hedge fund managers and their ilk...
Oh yes please, that's a great idea. I think we should run our government like Iraq does. What are you smoking?
Seriously, of course you have the right to vote for the candidate of your choice. But be prepared to accept the consequences and take responsibility for your vote. When Palin initiates World War III and bombs are falling on the US because we've invaded a hostile country like, for example Spain (ha!), then you should be prepared to stand up and say "I VOTED FOR THIS!"
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. And there are some reasonable 3rd party candidates. But I'm a realist.
How are you being a realist if you don't even recognize the reality that Obama and Biden support war just as much as McCain and Palin?
Don't you mean "we should run our government like our government runs Iraq's government"?
As a former election station monitor in Bosnia, I can assure you that we have one of the worst sets of election and ballot access laws on Earth, excluding those places that don't even bother having elections. Looking to other countries could only help.
No one in Namibia ever dealt with a dangling chad.
That doesn't make you a realist, it makes you a fatalist. I MUST vote for evil since that is the only viable choice, waaaaaaaaah!
Radio-tec writes:
"[Obama] will move to the center if we let him."
-----
The implication, which is mistaken, is that Obama might drift RIGHT to the center.
Corporate figurehead Obama is ALREADY way to the right of "center", if there IS a center. Obama would have to move FAR to the "left" -- on national health, Afghanistan, Iraq, domestic surveillance, energy policy, "welfare" policy and more -- to get within striking distance of the "center".
Besides, as the dollars which are scarce for millions are worth less and less, and more and more people come to realize Obama helped toss a couple of TRILLION dollars to the corporations, the "center" -- if there is one -- might MOVE in some direction not easily erased by left OR right.
THEN what will hope-and-change be worth? Crass as it seems to bring practical concerns to the party, how about the Democrats embark at once on Free Cheese AND National Health?
In the meantime, steady-minded elements of the independent left will vote for Ralph Nader.
A good turnout for Nader could "pressure" (the word the liberal "left" is using) the Democrats to appoint Nader Attorney General. Up there with Colin Powell, I mean. As Attorney General, Nader'd manage to get the people's "bailout" money, and a bunch of bad mortgages, BACK from the corporate mob.
AFTER the election, the Obama administration will be shushing social and military critics on account of the "right".
Now IS the time -- the last chance before the law suits start to DEMAND that the Democratic Party pledge itself to provide National Health and housing. A bazillion people are functionally homeless, and many more -- not a few of whom are women and children -- living in the streets, woods, parks, campgrounds.
The way to DEMAND something from the Democrats is to vote for Ralph Nader. Too bad that's true, but it is: down to the county committee level, the Democrats are relentlessly ANTI-democratic, weeding out populist tendencies and poverty concerns at every level.//
Exactly! Far to the right, but right to the left of McCain, therefore he appears to the left.
But is actually to the right.
It seems easy to trick Americans en masse, leading them all to vote right when half desire a vote to the left.
Nader is definitely to the far left of Obama and McCain, but only just left of right.
These distances are very deceiving. When we have the political landscape as it stands.
I've read most of your posting and they demonstrate that you are a thoughtful person.
I've taken to heart your postings that regardless of the candidate that without a grassroots movement that no candidate once elected, Nader, McKinney, Obama or McCain will effect the kind of country we would be proud to live in free from bloated military spending, giveaways to Wall Street, etc.
I guess you have to look to California where the toughest CO2 emissions in the country were to be implemented by a Republican Governor named Arnold Schwarzenegger. That couldn't have happened unless he had a lot of political pressure on him from the grass roots. It doesn't mean I'm slobbering all over Governor Schwarzenegger but it does demonstrate to power of the people to effect change no matter who's in the Governors mansion or White House as the case may be.
I also believe that we haven't seen the end of this process of change and regardless of who gets elected the struggle has only begun.
Excellent, yes exactly.
As predictable as winter is Soloman's attacks on Nader. Remember his warning to Greens about Nader's anti-war run? Here it is-
Don't gamble with your vote in 2004
By Norman Soloman
15 Oct 2003|
Is Ralph ready to run?
Photo: Nader 2000.Activists have plenty of good reasons to challenge the Democratic Party operatives who focus on election strategy while routinely betraying progressive ideals. Unfortunately, the national Green Party now shows appreciable signs of the reverse problem -- focusing on admirable ideals without plausible strategy. If Ralph Nader runs for president next year, as now appears quite likely, this recurring exercise would amount to a Green Party crutch that, ironically, could do more to hobble the party than help it.
It's impossible to know whether the vote margin between Bush and his Democratic challenger will be narrow or wide in November 2004. I've never heard a credible argument that a Nader campaign might help to defeat Bush next year. A Nader campaign might have no significant effect on Bush's chances -- or it could help Bush win. With so much at stake, do we really want to roll the dice this way?
We're told that another Nader campaign will help build the Green Party. But Nader's prospects of coming near his nationwide 2000 vote total of almost 2.9 million are slim. Much more probable (given the widespread eagerness to prevent a second term for Bush) is that a 2004 campaign would win far fewer votes -- hardly the sign of a thriving party.
It appears to me that the entire project of running a Green presidential candidate in 2004 is counterproductive. Some faithful will be energized, with a number of predictably uplifting 'super rallies' along the way, but many past and potential Green voters are likely to consciously turn away. Such a campaign will generate much alienation and bitterness from natural constituencies.
Norm, why not admit you are not a progressive and you hate Ralph Nader for reminding you?
It's a good thing that Norm was able to contribute to that Kerry victory! Isn't everyone happy that they voted Kerry in 2004? You'd hate to waste your vote.
And in 2000, aren't you glad you didn't waste your vote on Nader, and instead voted for President Gore, who fought tooth and nail to preserve your victory when Bush tried to steal the election.
Yessirree, very important not to waste one's vote on anyone other than a Democrat!
I tell ya, it was thrilling. 2004 was the worst vote I ever cast, and the last meaningless vote that I will ever cast. Afterward, I wrote a song called, "I Should Have Voted for Nader." And I meant it.
After reading many of the posts here one thing is clear. Regardless of who wins this election we have all lost. Bush, McCain and the Republican spin machine have not only divided the country they have divided the "liberal" "left" "progressive" "radical" community against itself and though they may loose this election bigtime we have lost too.
hmmm, you are the only one who can choose to feel like a looser. The rest of us are free to continue on in our lives as long as we are blessed fighting and feeling like winners. What do we have to lose?
If you read my post carefully I stated that the progressive cause will loose. A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe Abraham Lincoln said that.
It's "lose," not "loose."
Thanks.
The light of truth can only be lost by those who refuse to light a match but instead choose to curse the darkness. Someone famous said something like that I believe.
Norm, this is the best you got? This is the culmination of a year’s worth of work as Obama’s “progressive” baggage handler? This is your rallying cry to the troops before they go into battle? This is your no-holds-barred best case argument for an Obama executive? It’s T-minus 8 days; the independent voters are weighing their options; you’ve got one last chance to make a decisive, factual, and convincing argument FOR Obama, and you deliver:
A tired, sad, and pathetic diatribe about Ralph Nader and more primary school, culture of fear puffery about McCain/Palin! With no hint of irony, you argue that the Nader/Gonzalez campaign is anachronistic! You had the chance to act like a true progressive leader, embrace change, inspire hope, but you just couldn’t let another opportunity pass to exorcise your personal hang-ups with Ralph Nader.
--
Apparently it's OK for Norm to trivialize the neoliberal, imperial, and rotten soul of Obama and the Democratic Party, but somehow it is heresy for Nader to fail to highlight the obvious reactionary nature of McCain/Palin.
This is called "projection": Norm wants us to conveniently ignore the fact he minimizes the rabidly pro-war and pro-corporate positions/actions of Obama, to focus on the purported fact that Nader ignores the equally pro-war and pro-corporate positions/actions of McCain/Palin.
The real difference between Norm and Nader is simply that Norm is an unabashed fear monger - Nader is not. Norm has to fear monger progressives about Nader and McCain because his candidate is morally bankrupt when it comes to killing innocent civilians abroad and economic terrorism on the home front.
Nader doesn't have to fear monger because he has maintained a principled stance on issues, especially war – Norm has not. Norm is left propping up a war monger in an illogical and contradictory attempt to prove he is a consistent antiwar leader.
Another way to put it: Nader stands for something, while Norm is a self-pacifying nihilist. Norm can't highlight his antiwar principles too much these days; Obama wants to escalate our acts of state terrorism overseas and lay more fertile soil for budding jihadists.
Norm terrorizes the electorate about the drift of the Republican Party to the extreme right. Yet he fails to note that this shift is not possible without the tacit cooperation or direct complicity of the Democratic Party. Norm and Obama are the faux resistance. The counterbalance to an extreme right is a principled and differentiated left. Norm and Obama have long ago abandoned the left, the center, or any pretense of regard for the will of the people. Why? They are dialing for the same corporate dollars as the Republicans. The Democrats stay in lock-step unison with the Republicans to maintain the probabilities of converting some of their more ever-right-leaning base and snagging independents. In short, the principled stance is too politically risky for the Democrats. They certainly aren’t going to try and offset any vote losses incurred due to a principled stance by tapping the potential electoral majority represented by non-voters and poor. It’s much easier and more expedient to fall in line with the needs of corporate capital, just like the “evil” Republicans.
-Notice how Norm can't make a substantive case FOR Obama? He can only make cases AGAINST McCain and Nader.
-Notice how Norm can't provide any proof that Obama is more amenable to progressive influence than McCain?
-Notice how you have to swallow one big lie to follow Norm's logic? McCain is evil and will destroy the progressive movement.
-Notice how Norm can't offer one way in which Obama can be leveraged by the progressive movement?
-Notice how Norm demands nothing from Obama?
-Notice how Norm puts all the responsibility on the progressive movement, not Obama?
-Notice the contradiction in Norm saying the “fight” and success is really up to us, but somehow Obama is the critical linchpin for the movement to be successful?
This is basic neoliberal diffusion: responsibility for Obama is preemptively assuaged because a) voters knew he was neoliberal, b) voters accepted the disingenuous argument that Obama's election was critical to the progressive movement, and c) voters were warned that progressive change would really be up to them.
Any failure of the progressive movement is conveniently put on the usual neoliberal scapegoats: personal responsibility and individual pathology. The public-private linkages in political life have been destroyed by Norm's sell-out strategy: Obama is anointed to yield power at will, unchecked, unencumbered of demands, constraints, or even basic fiduciary expectations - any improvement in your life must be attained by "fighting", struggling to take back power that was granted without condition (what is won back are “neoliberal scraps from the table”).
Reciprocal responsibility is destroyed. Obama is preemptively off the hook, but he can always blame any real or implied lack of a progressive mobilization. Citizens are quickly on the path to further alienation as the “Obama as progressive linchpin” fallacy is quickly overcome with more regressive neoliberal economic realities. Citizens can blame Obama for being unresponsive, but ultimately they can only blame themselves for Obama's failure because there were no promises made; in fact, just the opposite: they were told Obama was neoliberal and it would be a "fight".
--
Norm, this game is about leadership and finding a path to power – these are two things you know nothing about, and you are way out of Nader’s league. You are a benchwarmer stuck daydreaming about the holy grail of the left: a unified and mobilized grassroots progressive movement. Nader is playing, practicing, teaching, building a movement, winning, losing, but in the end, helping his team – you don’t even show up to practice.
Excellent! Talk about saying it like it is!
These trumped up bs arguments that stink to high heaven pandered by the democratic party and their minions need total and absolute rejection.
Tell me that you vote for Obama because that is your right as a democratic citizen and I hail you a saint, tell me you vote for Obama because with him you have the real winner, and me and a large mass of intelligent people will need to hold our nose as we sort through the bs you are trying to get us to receive as some gift to our salvation so we can in turn offer you the salvation you buried in the crap.
So there's voting for Nader as a protest vote and a way to slowly build some momentum for a viable third party, and there's voting for Obama as a way to move the country at least a step from the lunatic right. Neither one are a solution in itself and require much work afterwards. So how is one action so noble and perceptive and the other so ignorant? True, there's many Democrats with illusions about their party in this country, but not so much here. And I'd say at this time it's kind of important to not let the far right drag the whole spectrum further their way. Remember when Bush was strutting around talking about his political capital? Do we want a Palin with political capital? Anyway, a lot of work needs to be done either way, and fighting about who's really progesive won't help.
What about Obama's policy positions aren't lunatic right?
Please explain how attacking Pakistan is even centrist. Please explain how the bailout is even centrist. Please explain how the PATRIOT Act is even centrist.
Really, a vote for Nader need not be minimized just because our corrupt system doesn't allow for any more than two mainstream choices. It should be maximized so eventually our system can better it's self.
If a third party persists in being an upset party because the democrats will not recognize the will of the people that demands the furthering of change that when ignored leads to the upset, it is the responsibility of the democrats to serve and satisfy that will, or allow it to grow where it has expression. This is a democracy that we are developing and the DNC needs to get that in a meaningful way.
Regardless no matter who wins, our collective will should not be deterred.
First let's correct a misconception here. NADER DID NOT GIVE THE ELECTION TO BUSH IN 2000! Gore lost his own state of Tennessee. To my memory only George McGovern lost his own state while running for the Presidency in 1972. Gore even chose Joe Lieberman, ughhh, as his vice presidential nominee. He ran a lousy campaign, PERIOD! He didn't press for all the votes in Florida to be counted and when it looked like even his selective count was going to give him the election the Supreme Court, who's 5 members owe their positions either to Bush, Reagan or Nixon, halted the recount. Game goes to Bush.
So here's a simple proposal that won't satisfy everybody but I suspect it will satisfy most people here. It's painless too.
Those of you in safe states like California, Oregon, Washington, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts on the Democratic Party side and Texas, Oklahoma, The Dakotas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, etc states that will vote Republican can vote for Nader or McKinney. This is a winner take all system after all. Barack Obama will almost certainly get the electoral votes from the blue states and McCain will still get them from the red ones. The blue states, in all likelihood, have the majority of the Nader McKinney votes anyway and the red ones will go to McCain no matter which 3rd party candidate runs.
Now I have no illusions about Barack Obama. As I've stated previously he will move to the center if we let him. On the other hand the mathematics and logistics are weighed heavily against a Nader or McKinney victory. That's a structural defect in our system of elections that must be addressed. So for those of you in the battleground states here's some food for thought.
To Nader voters who voted for Nader in 2000, I include myself in this group, and potential voters for McKinney ask yourselves this question. Would a President Gore, if it was presented to him, have neglected to read the August 6, 2001 presidential briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack the United States"? Would he have neglected to act on it? Would a Gore administration have so colossally botched the Katrina and now the Ike recovery? These are not trivial questions. They've led to catastrophic consequences for the country.
Now look at John McCain's campaign and how he bankrupted it a year ago and ask yourself if he would get us out of this financial meltdown we're in. Look at his behavior as he acts impulsively, erratically and flailing during that financial meltdown and ask yourself if he can't even manage his own campaign can he, as President, manage a crisis. Watch him as he stokes up a caravan of hate and ask yourself if the man can be trusted to do that which is most basic in a President and unify the country. If you can't answer yes to either of these things then ask yourself if you want to live your lives in the next 4 years the way they were for the last 8 years and if you can answer yes then stick with your vote. If you want to end the politics of incompetence, fear and hate then you know what you have to do.
Again the struggle only starts when we vote. This is our inauguration into the political world. It will take work to press a progressive agenda. With Obama there's a chance. I don't see how there's any possibility with a McCain/Palin administration and god help us all if McCain, a four time survivor of melanoma, dies in office and we're faced with a President Palin. I'll leave you with that.
Radio_tec wrote: "Those of you in safe states like California, Oregon, Washington, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts on the Democratic Party side and Texas, Oklahoma, The Dakotas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, etc states that will vote Republican can vote for Nader or McKinney. This is a winner take all system after all. Barack Obama will almost certainly get the electoral votes from the blue states and McCain will still get them from the red ones. The blue states, in all likelihood, have the majority of the Nader McKinney votes anyway and the red ones will go to McCain no matter which 3rd party candidate runs."
The fact of the matter is Nader did only marginally better in the "Safe States" than he did in the Battle Ground States in 2000 and 2004. And when I talk of "Safe States" I really mean "Slam Dunk States" like California and Massachusetts. Nader like any other self respecting candidate shapes his campaign strategy to obtain the highest number of votes. If there isn't any incentive to devote the preponderance of your time in "Safe States" why should one strategize around that theory ? David CornCobb with the help of Medea Benjamin nearly destroyed the Green Party running a "Safe State" Strategy in 2004. The only reason they are on as many ballots as they are this year is because they were lucky enough to find a high profile candidate with hands on experience to head their ticket.
The fact of the matter is Nader can make a big impact in this campaign and not even come close to winning. If Nader gains 5% of the popular vote his campaign will receive Federal Money in order to set up a National Structure for a 3rd Party. If all of the posters who whine constantly about Nader being a "spoiler" actually directed their efforts to gain large vote totals for Nader in "Safe States" Ralph would spend more time there. But their real agenda is maintain the dominance of the Corporate Status Quo Party known as the Democrats.
So if you want Nader to campaign in states other than those you declare to be in play get out and give Nader a reason to adopt such a strategy and stop carping about him.
With all respect you have been talking about promoting Nader, who I admire, but who also has no broad grass roots organization that groups like ACORN have. He is not even running on the Green ticket. Cynthia McKinney is running on the Green Party ticket not Nader. So how is voting for Nader in a battleground state so he gets 5% of that vote, possibly tipping the state to McCain, going to help when he is not even in the Green Party?
There is no Green Party ticket here in Texas either so the argument would fall on its logic whether you argue to vote for the party or the person.
Radio_tec wrote: "With all respect you have been talking about promoting Nader, who I admire, but who also has no broad grass roots organization"
Nader received nearly 3 Million Votes in 2000. Eugene Victor Debs received nerly 1 Million votes at the turn of the 20 Century. Nader clearly does have appeal and more importantly his ideals have support by people who vote for other Political Candidates out of a false sense of expediency.
Radio_tec wrote: "that groups like ACORN have."
Who has ACORN run for office ? And what were their results ?
Radio_tec wrote: "He is not even running on the Green ticket. Cynthia McKinney is running on the Green Party ticket not Nader."
Yeah so ? Are you trying to say the Green Party is an electoral powerhouse ? In 2004 the Green Party's Presidential Candidate Polled 100,000 votes. Do you have an evidence that McKinney will do any better ?
Radio_tec wrote: "So how is voting for Nader in a battleground state so he gets 5% of that vote, possibly tipping the state to McCain, going to help"
I don't vote from my fears. I don't care what McCain does. People more prominent than Norman Solomon decried Ronald Reagan as evil incarnate yet we managed to make it through 8 Years of his Regime. It is just another line of Hyperbolic Clap-Trap that you have swallowed hook-line and sinker. The next Republican is worse than the last one and the one before that and the one before that and the one before that. It's the same logic used to sell Football and Baseball Games. "This is the game of the Century" Bulls**t ! It's the biggest game of that day. But in political discourse it is the ongoing work that really matters.
As to McCain and the Republicans I have never seen a more inept campaign in my life. Even Barry Goldwater had more on the ball than these dimwits. Ted Stevens was convicted yesterday on 7 Felony Counts and that to the selection of Palin, the stock market crash, the economic downturn, the finding that Palin violated ethics standards in the firing of a public safety official, Joe I'm not really a Plumber charade, Race Bait, Red Baiting, Terrorist Baiting. The fact of the matter is the Republicans have offered nothing of substance to the American People in this campaign. If the Democrats can't blow the Republicans out of the water in these conditions what good are they ? Nader was right in February when he told Tim Russert that "if the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans they ought to pack up, go home, reemerge in another form". And that was before the s*** hit the fan.
And people like Norman Solomon demand Nader fold up his campaign in order to guarantee the Democrats their landslide ? Talk about arrogance ! The only landslide they deserve is one they earn. And with the draconian policies they have set out it is obvious why this campaign is still a horse race. The Democrats could neutralize Nader's support base by adopting his positions. Something the DemocRATS refuse to do. That is their right. What's not their right is to then say Nader is a rogue for running to represent those positions.
So stop bashing Nader for the DemocRATS ineptitude !
Radio_tec wrote: "when he is not even in the Green Party ?"
Does that negate his position on the issues ?
Radio_tec wrote: "There is no Green Party ticket here in Texas either so the argument would fall on its logic whether you argue to vote for the party or the person."
Where did I say Vote for the Green Party ?
The fact of the matter is the Green Party did have a presence in Texas during Nader's 2000 Run. And through all of the infighting and sectarian bs that goes on within their ranks has fallen off the ballot there as well as a number of other states. The Greens have been in retreat since the Cobb Campaign and their future is clearly in doubt.
Nader is running a write-in campaign in Texas just like McKinney. It will be interesting to see how they fare in comparison to one another.
.
http://cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html
Dispelling the Myth of Election 2000
The Green Party’s explanation of the Florida vote...-interesting
.
Lets not live in the land of myth by talking about what the democrats might have done if they had won the 2000 election. Lets talk about what they did do when that election was stolen by a corrupt system that was in place after Bill Clinton served us for eight years. They did nothing. They are as much to blame for what happened in the last eight years as is Bush. If you cannot see that, what can you see?
OK if managing a hurricane recovery isn't important to you as it is to us in the Gulf Coast states, because someday all those blue FEMA tarps I see on the way to work will eventually go away and those people freezing outside of their destroyed houses after our recent cold front will find some way to get shelter, then lets deal with what's real.
McCain has demonstrably behaved erratically and impulsively. He has launched attacks on the very grass roots organizations like ACORN who are doing the hard, heavy and tedious work of organizing. ACORN has made some important contributions to making significant inroads for economic justice for the working poor and the working class. You can bet the bank that a McCain/Palin administration WILL go after this group the way Bush has gone after Muslims and as Bush has said, "You can take that to the Bank!" Two of ACORN's headquarters were broken into and their computers stolen. Is this Cointelpro revisited?
McCain has conducted a caravan of hate during his campaign second only to George Wallace or that old stalwart of segregation Strom Thurmond. Now witness the result. Just today a band of Neo-Nazis were arrested for attempting a killing spree and then killing Barack Obama, not very likely given his substantial Secret Service detail, but a significant public threat. A Democratic Party store front had a brick thrown through its window here in Houston. He has stoked the embers of hate on AM talk radio, which admittedly needs no help, but he has not repudiated either his audience’s chants of "Terrorist" and "kill him".
I have yet to hear the kind of seething fear, loathing and hatred against ordinary working people that has characterized the McCain rallies. If you can't see the difference between these neo-brown shirts and the way Obama has conducted his campaign then you're in a deep state of denial.
You can't blame FEMA on McCain alone, and you can't say I support atrocities based on one comment or a few that defend democracy and it's further development without looking like a total ass.
I didn't blame the FEMA fiasco on McCain but if his erratic circular firing squad behavior is what we can expect in a McCain/Palin administration then I'd rather have some one in office who at least can manage himself in a crisis. McCain is not that person.
You also really need to read my posts more carefully. Unless your name is John McCain it was never my intention to question your character. I was impuning McCain's character since it is he who is the "Straight Talk Express" and the supposed "honorable" candidate who has chosen this low road. I can only call it the way I see it with respect to McCain. I only asked if you could see the difference the same way you asked me if my eyes were open. Yet I didn't jump all over you for calling me blind.
Because the Democrats aren't the solution should we just divorce ourselves from the process and give our institution (flawed and corrupt as they are) to the Cheneys and Palins? No,the Dems aren't going to really change things, but having the rabid right in power does effect things on the grass roots level. We can all be involved on both levels without illusions.
I just don't subscribe to the belief that the crucial differerence lies with one or the other candidate for serving the peoples will. The peoples will is where I am placing my chips. I think that in a democracy we must and should have a representative in a candidacy that represents every political belief system. That is fair, so McCain, Obama, Nader and McKinney are all fair. I also persist in the belief that my actions should not be based nor influenced on which of these four makes it, but instead on how I will act regardless of who makes it. This persistence to right is the winner for us all.
Leea,
I suspect we agree on more than we disagree. The game is rigged. Proporional representation would allow even myself to vote for Nader again and I suspect more would and if he didn't get a high enough proportion of the vote then the second pick would. This is what Lani Guinier (sp?) was advocating before Clinton deselected her from the Assistant Attorney General's position. It would end this debate over who is best to rule.
Hmmm. I too suspect we agree on more than we disagree. But I am not debating over who is best to rule. The people are the best to rule, that has been predetermined defacto by being a citizen in a democracy. Which I am.
Then this argument has been about nothing then? I agree that people are the real leaders.
There are many ways to be civically engaged. Some become election judges. Others organize the community for cleaning up a super-fund site. Some will educate the community on the need to move the energy system off of fossil fuels. Some will even demonstrate against an illegitimate President when he tours through their home town.
There's no litmus test on what activists or activism is.
No there is no litmus test on activism, but when the mainstream voice of the people cries out in despair of food, medicine, and shelter, activism is either not helping and needs to be adjusted, or not happening.
I will say this and keep saying it, who our president is is insignificant to who we the people are in a democracy. We have found our ultimate scapegoat in creating this system and sustaining it. Doing the job of civic engagement is avoided like the plague in this country, we'd much rather find and or create a psuedo king that can serve our will through having the right job criteria to do it.
So our solution rests in finding that savior type figure that can epitomize and express our desire of democracy as a fact of who they are as an individual. As if this is possible!!!!!! Tell me how one person can do the job of the creation of a governing system that relies on the living will of the people to even exist?
Here we are bickering about which of the three or four ordained choices will most aptly fit this crazy ideal? What, so we can continue to live our disenfranchized shut down finger pointing lives of our own choice???????
If we want to see our lives change for the good, we must be that change.
End of story.
Well said!
This comment by the author is indicative: "What does that tell us about the logic of pressing forward with a vanguard approach even if it might serve the interests of right-wing forces that most progressives are straining to roll back in this election?" The question is a non-sequitor when taken within the context of free and open elections (which we do not have). It is valid only for the voter who continues to believe that the rigged two party system must be sanctioned by casting a vote for either member of the (both lesser and evil) duopoly. Those who have concluded that they no longer can sanction this corrupt process are using superb logic in "pressing forward with a vanguard approach" which is our only option other than not voting. We're no longer voting out of fear. Do you get it now, Mr. Solomon?
I don't expect Mr. Solomon to get it, but I do. Good point!
Oh Mr. Solomon will get it, and probably be paid for another article to attempt to deceive voters into voting for whom one of the two power heads are betting and praying will win.
The idea that these people don't get it is ridiculous, their writing proves how well they get it and what their agenda is, to get the money, greed, deceit, selfish base human desires, are getting the best of humanity right now.
Excellent!
skidog
Well I'm heading downtown today an cast my vote,here in CO,for OBAMA.Me thinks,firstly we have to repudiate the Fascist/Repubs,not the other way around.Here's for a better tomorrow.
Will you be willing to continue your repudiation regardless of the outcome of one presidential election? Because that is what you claim we have to do and one presidential election will not wipe out one half of this nation and their beliefs, and why should that claim be limited to one vote that will not and never will be an end to any means for a country where everyone has the right to do what is right for them?
Obama voted to renew the PATRIOT Aact, voted for Bush's FISA, is telling you he will dramatically increase the military and kill people abroad. How is this fighting fascism? How is this hope?
Lesser Evilist crap.
A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain.
(excuse the reposted comment - but it is also fitting here)
As usual, we have a crop of comments that argue that there is no real difference between Obama and McCain. Of course, there are differences. I'm sure everyone who reads CD knows the differences that both candidates put forth. So I won't get redundant here.
What I start to wonder is, if those who claim there are no differences have been isolated in their progressive communities from the broad spectrum of political perspectives for so long and ensconced in their own ideals for so long that they see everything other than what they believe as "the same." (Ironically, you may have more in common with the extreme-right than you think).
The reality, folks, is that America is not ready for YOUR candidate and the more stubbornly you cling to your ideal with no negotiation, the more you isolate yourselves.
Take a trip down south and see how different things can be. Attend a McCain/Palin rally and then attend a Obama/Biden rally and tell me there are no differences.
I have yet to hear Obama or Biden divide America into a "real America" and what is presumably a fake America. I have yet to hear chants of "terrorist,""traitor" or "get him" at an Obama/Biden rally with either of these candidates subtly goading his crowd on. If nothing else, you have to at least look at these read-meat people you're dealing with.
The differences in policy may not be as broad as you or I like, but do you expect the vast majority of the American public to change its political belief system overnight?
Perhaps those on here who claim their are no real differences and will vote for a third party candidate are waiting for things to get so bad, there will be a revolution. Sure . . . but who will climb to the top at the end of it all?
Are you sure the outcome will favor your candidate or some crazy dictator with complete control of the military?
Nobody has claimed that there's "no difference." What has been claimed is that you aren't doing anything to stop wars, welfare for corporations like the $700 bailout bill, the Patriot Act, etc., by voting for candidates who support these policies. The vast majority of Americans are opposed to these sorts of policies, so how is it that they're not "ready" for candidates who are for changing them?
The funny thing is that it's the Obama people who have not managed to list a single difference after days of this discussion on multiple posts!
They just state that there are "big differences" between McCain and Obama, and repeated requests to list them are met with silence.
We just assume the educated readers of CD saw the debates and so there's no reason to rehash here.
As bland as they were, if you saw no differences when watching these debates, there's nothing really new I can explain, here that will change your mind.
While Obama's policies on the environment are not perfect, they seem more friendly toward a wide variety of clean energy sources. McCain changed the subject in the last debate, when environmental policy came up. Obama proposes a greater openess toward the world. McCain/Palin, are not only more isolationist - they are actually isolating themselves from whatever is not "real America." Obama = greater gov't investment in social programs. McCain = more privatization. Etc. Etc. Etc.
If nothing else, McCain's age followed Palin's utter ineptness and complete lack of worldliness not to mention her fanatical religious and social intolerance should give all reason to pause. If still you see no differences, there's not much more I can say.
So I will vote with my conscience and not with my fear - but I will also keep in mind that we are living in a country where the majority of the country does not see things as we do. Thus we can not afford to vote "my way or the hi-way."
No, it is the Masters in the Republican and Democratic parties who have made it clear that it is "their way or the highway". Remember when Nancy Pelosi was all disgruntled because anti-war protesters were camped out in front of her house? So she said something to the effect that if they had been homeless people, she could just have them arrested and hauled away. But since they were anti-war protesters, they were protected by "free speech" and there was nothing she could do. It's just one little example of the character of this crowd. Obama campaigned for Joe Lieberman against an anti-war candidate, not to mention campaigning against a number of other Democratic anti-war candidates in 2006. It just goes to show that their main business is business. They are every bit a part of the crony capitalists. Nancy Pelosi will be so relieved when Obama can get his hands on all those presidential powers set up by Bush. The next phase of Fascism will most likely enter stage left.
Like all Obama supporters, you're just lying to yourself, in your eagerness to justify your desired conclusion. No one claims there are "no real differences" between Obama & McCain. Sure there are differences. But both of them are still defenders of corporate power, & proponents of US militarism.
You write, "The reality, folks, is that America is not ready for YOUR candidate ...."
- This is a cowardly argument, always trotted out by those afraid of change. The exact same argument was used to justify, for example, opposition to women's suffrage, & civil rights for blacks. It was even used to justify slavery. Before the Civil War, abolitionists were regarded as "extremists" who were "out of touch with the mainstream."
It was common in the 1950's & early '60's for white liberal middle-class Americans to say, "Sure, in theory, blacks should be able to vote, and to buy houses in white neighborhoods. But America just isn't ready for that. So I think that Martin Luther King guy should stop making so much noise. His people should be more patient. Now just isn't the time for such changes."
That's what you sound like.
OK. So what's your strategy?
As un-progressive as Obama is, a large contingent of the population calls him "socialist," and while this should be laughed off as the greatest of hyperboles, it seems to stick - as does the "horror" of the redistribution of wealth - something that Obama is, again, not really proposing but is tacked on to him because he's more to the left than McCain who's a firm "every man for himself" kinda guy.
A third party candidate like Nader or McKinney would not stand a chance against this type of fear-mongering. Even my mother-in-law, who voted for Kerry in 2004 is considering voting for McCain because of Obama's "terrorist connections." This is the status quo we're dealing with.
We don't live in the 1950s and 60s, anymore but a media-saturated society that can throw out all sorts of propaganda before the average person has a chance to think for him or herself.
I would assume many of the CD readers want more or less the same thing. We just have a different idea of how to get there. I don't see my decision to vote for Obama as cowardly. I wouldn't even classify myself as an Obama supporter but rather a citizen against McCain. Here in North Carolina, if I voted for a a third party candidate, I would be one more vote for McCain. I know it seems cliche to say this, but I believe it is true.
Again, what is your strategy? Do you just suppose the American populace will spontaneously rise up and bring down the machine, overnight? My strategy says that would take some time. But if you're the 5 percent of Nader supporters in Missouri, you're shooting yourself in the foot if you vote for him in 2008.
Perhaps McCain will win or the Republicans will steal the election as they have the last two in which case I'll be curious to know what you think in four years, if President Palin hasn't enthusiastically initiated Armageddon by then.
Actually it seems that Nader supporters will be shooting Obama supporters in the foot.
They will be breaking the chains on their own feet by voting their heart instead of voting their fear.
Lets face it if we continue to make this about the transient reality of which of the two only choices we have, two heads of the same beast, is what this is all about and will make the difference, we haven't learned anything yet, and the consequence of that failure to learn will be of our own making.
No matter what any change will come from a vote to commitment to that change. That commitment trumps who the president is, and guarantees hope for the future of humanity.
Nader cannot make or stop this, Obama cannot make or stop this, and McCain cannot make or stop this. Only wise dedicated people of whichever political affiliation that suits their commitment can make this. Rejecting a vote to dedication to these individuals and their beliefs and instead voting to dedication to ones self and ones own beliefs is the crucial eternal factor that will energize and revitalize this nation.
We will all agree to vote to dedicate our hearts to the needed changes that can carry us on in wisdom and truth.
"Of course, there are differences. I'm sure everyone who reads CD knows the differences that both candidates put forth."
No, I'm not aware of differences. I think you're not listing them here because you can't come up with them.
The Obama people avoid discussing their candidate's record and the issues at all costs. Bad sign, no? You're all frauds.
Well bless you in your vote for Obama, undoubtedly you will be screaming in joy at the front of the crowd, and dedicating your civil life to making sure he becomes the difference you perceive? Or on the other hand you will be screaming even louder in fear at the front of the crowd, and dedicating your civil life to making sure the other he doesn't become the dearth you perceive?
I thrill in the fact of any one person who is sure and the type of civil dedication that is sure to follow so we can finally see a wonderful turn around in this country, no matter what our challenge is.