EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Pregnant Anti-War Soldier Sent to Prison
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Time for Big Green to Go Fossil Free
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
Popular content
Today's Top News
John McCain in the Echo Chamber
October proved to be the cruelest month, for that was the time that Sen. McCain, he of the round, blank, Little Orphan Annie eyes, chose to try out a number of weird lies about Barack Obama ostensibly in the interest of a Republican Party long overdue for burial.
It is a wonder that any viewer survived his furious October onslaught whose craziest lie was that Obama wished to become president in order to tax the poor in the interest of a Democratic Party in place, as he put it in his best 1936 voice, to spend and spend because that's what Democrats always do. This was pretty feeble lying, even in such an age as ours. But it was the only thing that had stuck with him from those halcyon years when Gov. Alfred M. Landon was the candidate of the Grand Old Party, which in those days was dedicated to erasing every policy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose electoral success was due to, they thought, Harry Hopkins' chilling mantra, "we shall ... spend and spend and elect and elect." Arguably, the ignorant McCains of this world have no idea what any of this actually signifies; Hopkins' comment is a serious one, and serious matters seldom break through to cliché-ridden minds.
Although I am no fan of the television of my native land, I thought that an election featuring two historic novelties—the first credible female candidate for president and the first black nominee—would be great historic television, yet I should have been suspicious whenever I looked at McCain's malicious little face, plainly bent on great mischief. Whenever Obama made a sensible point, McCain was ready to trump it with a gorgeous lie.
When Obama said that only a small percentage of the middle class would suffer from income tax during his administration, McCain would start gabbling the 1936 Republican mantra that this actually meant that he would spend and spend and spend in order to spread the money around, a mild joke he has told for the benefit of a plumber who is looking forward to fiscal good fortune and so feared the tax man, using language very like that of long-dead socialists to reveal Obama's sinister games.
Advice to Obama: No civilized asides are permitted in McCain Land, where every half-understood word comes from the shadowy bosses of a diabolic Democratic Party, eager to steal the money of the poor in order to benefit, perversely, the even poorer.
So October (my natal month) was no joy for me, as the degradation of our democratic process was being McCainized. McCain is a prisoner of the past. Later, in due course he gave us the old address book treatment: names from Obama's past, each belonging to a potential terrorist. Even from the corpse of the Republican Party, which Abraham Lincoln left somewhat hastily in the 19th century, this was an unusually sickening display.
Happily, physicists assure us that there is no action without reaction.
There were still a few bright glimmers of something larger than a mere candidate of the Republican Party, but Mr. McCain seems to be in the terminal throes of a self-love that causes him to regard himself as a great American hero. From time to time, he likes to shout at us, "I have fought in many, many wars," and, "I have won many of them," but he has, so far, never told us which were the ones that he has actually won, since every war that he has graced with his samurai presence seems to have been thoroughly lost by the United States. Consistency is all-important to the born loser as well as to the committed liar.
So what little fame he has rests on the fact that he was taken a prisoner of war by the Vietnamese—hardly a recommendation for the leadership of the "free world"—and thus aware of the meagerness of his own curriculum vitae, for his vice presidential choice he then turned radically, in the age of the awakening to power of women, to an Alaskan politician; a giggly Piltdown princess out of pre-history.
Her qualification? She has once been mayor (or was it "mare"?) of an Alaskan village and later governor of what had been known as "Seward's Icebox," named for Lincoln's secretary of state, William Seward, who had over the misgivings of many bought all that ice from Russia.
One does get the impression that the senator from Arizona is living in a sort of echo chamber of nonsensical phrases, notions and unreality.
To further add insult to injury, as it were, he describes himself as a "maverick," which one critic in the audience assures him he is not, anyway, like the great Maury Maverick, a New Deal congressman from Texas who was so dedicated to freedom that he allowed his cattle to roam unbranded, freely on the range—a tribute to a time when Texans were freer than now in the post-Bush era.
The critic in the audience said that he was no maverick in the usual sense on the ground that he was simply a sidekick. That just about sums it up: Sidekick to the only president we have ever had who lacked any interest in governance.
As we are going through a religious phase in this greatest of all great nations, I am reminded of Chancellor Bismarck's remark about us Americans in the 19th century when he said: "God looks after drunks, little children and the United States of America."
Amen.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
99 Comments so far
Show AllBut, but, but you didn't say anything bad about Obama? How could that be? Don't you know that there is no difference between Obama and McCain? [roll eyes]
What, first Chomsky and now Vidal? CDers, you're running out of friends.
"God looks after drunks, little children and the United States of America."
That's why I aspire to be of all three!
I wonder if those who claim to find no difference between McCain and Obama have read Obama's books, or studied his speeches?
As a professor (emeritus) of literature, I have closely studied Obama's works,and I find there a man who really compares to Lincoln, another inexperienced, suspiciously eloquent candidate from Illinois. Obama has immersed himself in the history and philosophy of American democracy, and has achieved a profound understanding of our values. He beleiuves in Americans, he is deeply committed to faith in the people - like the greatest presidents, like Lincoln, like both Roosevelts. He challenges us to be our best selves. That's why the young, who have excellent BS detectors respond to him so enthusiastically.
Cynicism is the enemy. Let's give him a chance. He is surely is a lot different from the scoundrel who now disgraces the presidency.
Sam Abrams
mas.smarba@gmail.com
"He is surely is a lot different from the scoundrel who now disgraces the presidency."
Bull shit. You are living in Denial. LOOK AT HIS VOTING RECORD. He has served as an accomplice to the scoundrel in the White House. He and Bush are very, very similar. You just want to believe that Obama's different because he has a D behind his name.
Why do you Obama suckers want to live in Denial about Obama's VOTING RECORD? Why do you refuse to talk about his Bush-accomplice voting record and instead focus on dreamy emotional bull shit? Because it's easier for you. Sucking up emotional pabulum is much easier than studiously studying a candidate's corporate VOTING RECORD and then struggling to defend it, when you can't. So instead, you and other Obama suckers go off on dreamy "FDR" clouds in the sky wishful-dreamy thinking. It's nothing but pabulum and drivel. Where the VOTING RECORD is concrete. It's what the man has done FOR Bush/Cheney and Rove in the senate.
This FRAUD/slick politician has "played you like a fiddle" and you're too damn thick and in Denial to see it.
No, no, no. He is not like Bush, not like McCain. Of course, he is a politician in this corporatist oligarchy, and so he knows who the true masters are. But really, to say there's no difference is idiotic.
There isn't ENOUGH difference, that's the problem. Call me "purist" but I'm not willing to support nuclear, pro-war, pro-corporate, Rubin-style economics, etc.
Gracias.
So you'd prefer to throw your vote away on a candidate who has no chance of winning, therefore no chance of bringing about any of the changes you would like in our society.
It's the Naderites and the Anybody-but-Obama-nuts that are in denial. Not denial about the true state of our corporatist duopoly, but denial about the fact that voting for Nader or another alternative candidate is a useless gesture, and denial about the fact that we MUST PREVENT the rethugs from taking the WH this November!
First off, your Obama is a Rethug. But your Denial will not allow you to see that. Have you examined his RECORD? Well here it is (A PARTIAL LIST):
Obama is right, he has not shifted positions. He's always been a right leaning shill. Obama has:
campaigned in support one of the worst Bush-enabling Blue Dogs over a progressive challenger
reversed himself and announced his support of FISA
repudiated Wesley Clark and said Clark had "dishonored John McCain's service"
condemned MoveOn.org for its newspaper ad criticizing Gen. Petraeus
defended his own patriotism by impugning the patriotism of others, including the "the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties" for "attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself" and "blaming America for all that was wrong with the world"
announced is support for continuing Bush’s faith based initiatives program, including allowing religious charities discriminate based on religious belief
hired the pro-Walmart economist Jason Furman as his economic policy director
named Jim Messina, who served as pro-corporate Max Baucus’s chief of staff, as his campaign chief of staff
formed a Working Group on National Security that consists Warren Christopher, Sam Nunn, David Boren, Madeleine Albright and other old world pols
made statements in support of NAFTA, which he now says he won't revisit
released a campaign ad which hits on right-wing themes like "cutting taxes" and "moving people from welfare to work"
announced that women with mental health problems should not have access to abortion.
All this came on top of Obama’s earlier:
praising Reagan and Bush
arguing that religious politicians can't be expected to leave their beliefs at the door
stating that Bush hasn't quite met the standard of "grave, intentional breaches to presidential authority”
refusing to support Barbara Boxer’s resolution asking that voting irregularities in Ohio in 2004 at least be looked in to; Obama said Bush won Ohio” fair & square”
praising gay men who do them the kindness of not "proselytizing
supporting an immigration plan sponsored by John McCain, which does not include benefits or amnesty for undocumented immigrants
bragging that he can attract Republican voters
And in his little time in the Senate he:
promoted nuclear energy as "green," earning plaudits from the nuclear power industry as it works to resume building nuclear power plants across the country
voted to continue to fund the Iraq war
opposed John Murtha's call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq
refused to join 13 senators who voted against confirming Condi Rice as SOS
voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act.
voted against a bankruptcy bill amendment that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent.
opposed a bill that would have reformed the notorious Mining Law of 1872.
did not support the single-payer health care bill sponsored by Kucinich & Conyers
worked to pass a class-action "reform" bill that would effectively shut down state courts as a venue to hear most class-action lawsuits, including those based on discrimination, consumer fraud, and wage-and-hour violations. This bill was heavily pushed by financial firms, which make up his second-biggest single bloc of donors.
If this is the record of a leftist, then what does the record of a rightist look like?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you're going to "throw your vote away" by voting for lord and saviour Walk on Water Obama? If you and others who claim to want "change" voted in one big block Nader could be elected, assuming the vote-flipping voting machines owned and controlled by the Repugs select him. (Not a word in your comments about our fraudulent voting system, I might add. That's typical).
But you won't do that, you'll vote for the FRAUD with a big D behind his name and stay in the same rut which has gotten us to where we are today.
When someone does something on PRINCIPLE/CONSCIENCE, it's never an "useless gesture."
When someone does something based on some slick politicians "hope and change" bull shit, that is indeed an "useless gesture" because the person has allowed themselves to be bamboozled/duped, YET AGAIN for the umpteenth time.
And they never look at the (VOTING) RECORD. The just swallow the emotional pabulum.
Thank you. The Obama supporters - the smart ones - are driven by fear and they build their reason around that. They see how the empire would punish and lash out with the smell of the slightest resistance in the air, as in the 2000 election. Gore Vidal voted for Nader that year, by the way.
But the Bush regime put a stop to that kind of independent thinking and voting. Now progressives are not so apt to resist but instead want to go along, building a resistance from the ground up. As if we haven't been trying this for a long, long time already. What will they use for "holding feet to the fire," as they tell us, earnestly, they will do? They never say. I'm not holding my breath. You can't go along and resist at the same time. You have to align yourself. You can't allow them to align you.
We Nader supporters have a different take. We think it would be counter-productive to just go away or silence ourselves in the face of what we see as a big lie, a trick. Some of us are naturally perverse in an idealistic sort of way and that's not always a bad thing. There is energy, fight, truth, and passion. Get used to it. We'll be Obama's harshest critics. Right now there is talk about something really big coming our way (Joseph Biden's cryptic words) and the Obama team will be testing your commitment to Democracy. I just hope you Democrats can see the forest for the trees. Obama is very charismatic - as was Ted Bundy - so beware of his influence over "most of the people, most of the time." Could he talk you into more wars? Please learn to say "no."
Hank Fur, don't pretend to know me and why I support Obama. I am not driven by fear. I am driven by hope. You might try hope instead of being such a cynical a-hole.
Why don't you have a serious candidate? It's because you're too damn busy fighting amongst yourselves.
And I agree. You are perverse.
OK, you've made your point, and I agree with you in principle that Obama is a right-wing politician who says what people want to hear in order to advance his career.
But I disagree with you when you say that electing Obama to the White House will have the same results as electing McCain. I'm not going to type out a big list like you did (thanks for that - I appreciate the attention to detail) but suffice it to say that McCain is an aging psycho who chose a theocratic nutjob for VP, and Obama is actually pretty smart.
And I'm not going to throw my vote away at all. I live in California, which is always carried by the Democratic cadidate, so I can vote for McKinney and not worry about it.
The problem I have with Nader is that he only comes out of the woodwork around election time, when he could be making a lot more noise in the in-between times and maybe getting some stuff done.
Nader told us electing Bush was the same as electing Gore in 2000. I'll wager he's smart enough to realize that he was mistaken on that one. Saying Obama = McCain is the same flawed mantra repeated here at nauseum by Nader's supporters. I wonder if even Ralph is saying that today? I'm sure we're about to find out. ; )
BellingtonTheCat says: "So you'd prefer to throw your vote away on a candidate who has no chance of winning, therefore no chance of bringing about any of the changes you would like in our society."
BellingtonTheCat makes a fundamental mistake: equating "winning" with "bringing about changes in society". The second neither follows automatically from the first, nor always requre the first.
The Democlasts continue to believe that it is necessary to get "our man" (or, as it nearly was, "our woman") into the White House, and when that is achieved everything else follows more or less automatically. After Bill Clinton, you should know better. It's also worthy of note that the regressive right has followed the exactly opposite strategy: they built up a base from the bottom up, on the principle that there is no public office too small or local to be worth fighting for. The results we now see.
As to my second point, the fact is that even if third parties can't win (which is true only because you Americans have decided in advance that they cannot win) their ideas can. That's how third parties gain traction: they frighten the lesser-evil party of the day into adopting their ideas. So long as the Democlast candidate can get away with saying "Vote for me or else!" nothing will change.
"There Is No Alternative" was Margaret Thatcher's slogan too.
Like most people, you're in Denial too. Examine his voting record and what he has done FOR Bush.
I'm not talking about his "feel good, tell them what they want to hear" (anti-Bush) speeches.
Voting record, voting record....you are a broken record yourself.
As if that is all one need know about a candidate. These politicians vote one way or another for a variety of reasons, and often make contradictory votes over time. That's a legislative function.
We are talking about electing a chief executive.
Presidents do not vote. They propose, they lead if they are any good.
We are in the unfortunate position of having a choice among human beings, not voting machinery.
Get off this "voting record" kick, and think for a change!
It's a shame we have no voting record for Nader so we could compare like to like. All we have from Nader is talk; some good talk, it's true, and maybe even some inspiring talk. But according to many of his supporters here similar good and inspiring talk is not to be trusted when it comes from Obama. Seems to be a disconnect there.
That's pretty funny. You seem to think that Obama's voting record is irrelevant, even though he has voted more than once to violate the Constitution that he swore to protect and defend. Votes, shmotes. Democrats seem to share Bush's opinion that the Constitution is just a goddamn piece of parchment. And they don't seem to mind letting those who instituted a policy of torturing prisoners, many of whom are innocent of any crime, go about their business undisturbed.
When the political spectrum is viewed from Left-to-Right, there is a Moderate Middle which encompasses at least 50% of the overall electorate near the middle and on both sides of the political divide, and share many viewpoint. In order to serve the majority, an elected representative MUST therefore 'dither' between Right and Left of this Moderate Middle view even though they seem unloyal to their party and pandering to all. Republican Party extremist leaders portray the Democratic Party Moderate as a goddam politician knowing that extremists of both sides will fall for this BS. Ralph Nader is an extremist not representing the views of most democrats nor most of the American public.
"Ralph Nader is an extremist not representing the views of most democrats nor most of the American public."
Clearly you know absolutely NOTHING about Nader based on that willfully-ignorant drivel.
Do you not get the idea that this country has been taken to extremes not even imagined by most of us, and shows signs that this Extremism is not about to end?! Biden has just told us that Obama will be bringing us actions that will be extreme, shocking, and very antagonizing to a misunderstanding U.S. populace. I think Obama's voting record, voting record, voting record is quite indicative of the possibility of the fascist agenda of the MIC being carried forward by this wing of the Globalist Fascist Party.
There's a number of statistical analyses out there. Most put Obama slightly left of center amongst Democrats. Here is an example: http://voteview.com/sen109.htm, by statisticians Poole and Lewis. In this one, Obama is ranked 21st in the senate (in order of idelogy from left) and McCain 100th.
While you wait, possibly for all Eternity, for the Candidate Perfectly to Your Liking, we lesser mortals must actually discern the differences between McCain and Obama in order to actually elect the next president who is neither Reagan, Bush, Bush, nor McCain.
Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Like voting for Republicrats one voting cycle after the other and wishing for positive change, deliberately deluding yourself and hoping for positive change...because some slick politician's main cliche and slogan is "hope and change," while his VOTING RECORD doesn't at all indicate "change" whatsoever. His VOTING RECORD indicates the pro-Bush, pro-war, pro-corporate status quo.
Man, these pathetic Obama suckers hate to address Obama's status-quo VOTING RECORD. They won't do it. Because they have NOTHING concrete or substantive to base their support on if they do.
Hear hear. And welcome to the forum of angry, dissatisfied Stalinists and 3rd party advocates.
So who are you? You only throw arrows at us but you never, discuss Obama's actual record. No one on the Obama side will do it. Inquiring minds want to know: why not? We can only think that maybe you haven't even studied it. By the way, it's not that different from McCain's. Howard Zinn said that the Republican Party is only slightly to the right of Obama.
So please, defend your opinion, make us think you're as smart as Vidal. Change our minds so that your Obama can win. If the only reason you support Obama is because 1) he's charismatic and smart and 2) McCain is worse, say it. We'd understand. I would. It's the Obama worshiping that terrifies me. Voting to fund the brutal killing of 1.3 million innocent Iraqi people - mostly children - is a vile, despicable thing to do. What is it you support in that? And Obama is out-hawking McCain right now, on Pakistan and Afghanistan. Why not? He has your undying support. Tell us why this is good.
Because he can win.
Because he is not the candidate of white privilege.
"As a professor (emeritus) of literature, I have closely studied Obama's works"
Anyone can say ANYTHING in a book...and you speak of "excellent BS detectors?"
You should have closely studied Obama's Bush-accomplice ***VOTING RECORD*** as a senator. That's what counts and that's what matters. Not words in "Obama's works."
And the young have excellent BS detectors? Bull shit. If they did they wouldn't have fallen all over themselves all wide-eyed falling for this FRAUD and his "hope and change" drivel. Does his voting record look like "change?" HELL NO. His voting record looks like the pro-Bush status quo.
Also, you're confusing "cynicism" with being a realist. Look at what the man has done for Bush, Cheney and Rove while in congress. That has nothing whatsoever to do with "cynicism." It's the REALITY of his voting record, which you and others refuse to talk about. There's not a word in your comments about his voting record. All you do is talk about the emotional.
You can "give him a chance" and then make apologies and excuses for him for the next 4 years (assuming he's selected by the vote-flipping Repug-owned and controlled electronic voting machines).
I've already voted for Nader/Gonzalez and Cindy Sheehan to replace that despicable Bush-accomplice Pelosi.
Our country was founded on what Professeor "smarba" calls cynicism. The founders separated the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government because they knew perfectly well that political leaders will always attempt to increase and consolidate their personal power at the expense of their fellow citizens unless they are restrained from doing so. And unlike the kowtowing Democrats of our time, they weren't afraid to say so, publicly and forcefully. To borrow a phrase from Alexander Hamilton, Professor smarba must be "far gone in Utopian speculation" to believe that, if we just give the Democratics one more chance, they'll save our country from the predations of Republicans.
smarba also wrote "He challenges us to be our best selves." It's appropriate for parents to challenge children in their charge to be their best selves. Adult citizens of a democracy are supposed to know how to do that themselves. And if Obama's calculated vacuities represent the best smarba can imagine, I fee sorry for smarba.
"Read his books or studied his speeches?" You must be kidding. That's how you evaluate a person? You believe what they say rather than what they do. You may be old but you're naive. You could get educated by looking at Obama's voting record?
Answer me this, Mr. Professor: Why did Obama vote against a very good bill that would cap interest rates at 35% rather than let them go out of control like they are now. Keep in mind, it's mostly the poor who have to take out loans with interest rates over 35%. And why was he so moved to twist arms in order to to get the bailout passed? Could it be that the 22 million he got from the financial industry played a role? Did he write about those kinds of things in his book?
Obama is a Constitutional scholar. Why did he choose to fund the illegal war and occupation against Iraqis, resulting in the killing of 1.3 million innocent people - mostly children? Just simple questions. Can you answer? Can anyone answer? We Nader supporters ask all the time and we never get an answer ... just that he's better than McCain. Howard Zinn says the Republican Party is only slightly to the right of Obama. He will vote for Obama but at least he HAS A CLUE.
It's clear, you don't have a clue. But you'd better get one because we have an empire that wants to eat children for breakfast. The power structure that put candidate Obama and candidate McCain before us, knows a thing or two about trust. Do you?
Ralph Nader has a healthy respect for education. Try it.
Thank you Sam. You're sane. That makes 2 of us on the blog.
Maybe the rest will learn to spell GOOGLE. If they do, they will rapidaly any number of sources that will detail the difference between Obama's proposals and McCain's proposals.
I've read Obama's books. I've looked at his voting record. I've listened to his words. I will not vote for pro-war, pro-nuclear, pro-death sentences of innocent human lives via terrrorist activities from the U.S. military, pro-Rubin economic policies, pro-Wall Street bailouts... the list is endless!! What issue would convince you of his worthlessness? And I feel the exact same way about John McCain, too. (but I haven't read his books!)
We should all be able to agree with Gore Vidal that the nation needs to be rid of "a Republican Party long overdue for burial.".
Yes, we can all agree on that. However, if Noam Chomsky is correct, the One-Party, corporate-ruled system will still be in control. As far as Democracy is concerned, this is not sustainable and it is not acceptable. I don't care how intelligent or charismatic our president might seem on superficial examination. You have to look at where he takes this country. If he does it half-assed and does not have the American people's best interest at heart, it will be apparent and he'll just end up, again, giving power back to the Republicans in 2012. That's been the pattern. It's up to us to gain control.
Joseph Biden, Obama's VP choice, made some ominous comments recently. Already, they have the lunge line in hand and are ready to take you where you don't want to be. Open your eyes and see it all, the money, the corporate power, the brutality and then look at the lunge line, ready to get you going in their direction.
We the people must refuse to be herded. First step is to analyze their adept skill at herding you - us - into their pen and then turn it around. At this juncture, they're using compare and contrast to herd the masses. McCain is soooo very bad and scary (I agree!), he makes Obama look good - in comparison. But take away McCain and what do you have with Obama? Go ahead, look at his record. It's clear where he stands .. or rather cuddles. It's in the pockets of very large, powerful corporations. That should give us pause. Don't be afraid, just know what the real deal is. It's the only way to go forward. Letting a charismatic lead you to a place you don't want to be is counter-productive and dangerous. Maybe you remember a little bit about that from your teen or young adult years. Look critically at our past. We are being boiled like frogs. We need to learn leadership skills in order to lead our public servants, not the other way around. We could save the lives of a lot of people by standing firm.
So please, please, Obama supporters, once he wins, let's get over the infatuation, the big crush on Obama and let's all get to work on reining in our government. There are more of us then there are of them, so we have a good chance at gaining the upper hand, the way it's supposed to be, right? We have so many good people in our movement with intelligence and qualities that we respect and trust. Why would we want to be herded by the same ones who put the rich and powerful ahead of the rest of us, the same ones who went along with despicable and brutal aggression against innocent human beings (Iraq, Afghanistan, Viet Nam, etc.) It is never wise to put your trust in someone who does that. He could turn on you just as easily. It's up to us to gain the control.
Peaceable, steady resistance is the answer, the only answer. Obama needs to know that we will back him up if he can prove himself and gain our trust. Don't let him off the hook. If he resists, using his charisma to deflect us, we'll fight him and anyone else who tries to ride rough-shod over human beings in the interest of oppressive powers. This will be more about us than him.
Time to get to work. We will make history, my friends :)
From time to time, he likes to shout at us, "I have fought in many, many wars," and, "I have won many of them," . . .
Such as The Indochina Redux War which lasted for one day in 1978 when McCain himself, piloting a WWII era B-17 Flying Fortress, dropped a Hypothermonuclear bomb on Hanoi, killing the entire leadership of the Communist Party. (North) Vietnam surrendered shortly thereafter and was turned into a parking lot for the storage of McCain's 17 cars.
Then he woke up and remembered he can't lift his arms above his shoulders.
Beautiful.
As usual, Mordechai gets to the crux of the actual article while others turn Selection 2008 into a referendum on Nader.
He must have one of the
__ W I M P I E S T
__ salutes ever attempted
Namaste
It's like Bleak Tuesday here on the CD - between this spot-on GV piece, Cooper's and Monbiot's, it's enough to make an American apply for permanent residence on the International Space Station...
Send us a postcard ....
Another illustrious camp follower. All waiting for an invite to the Obama White House. Meanwhile, those of us with out integrity still intact, if not our bank accounbts, should contemplate these Post election headlines-
Obama Bombs on Single Payer Health Care for All. Insurance Companies Win
Obama Bombs Syria and Pakistan- Wider Wars Predicted
Obama Bombs on Foreclosures Ban- Corporate Advisers Say Not Enough Money
Obama Bombs on Workers’ Rights- Lucky to Have a Job, says Obama. No extension of Unemployment Benefits
Obama Bombs on Tax Breaks- Must Pay Off Corporate Debts First
Don’t Wait for Obama to Bomb- Vote Ralph Nader 2008 and the Nader Agenda!
genicon
" Ralph Nader is an extremist not representing the views of most democrats nor most of the American public"
I beg to differ, Most Democrats and most of the American public agree with Nader but because the corporate duopoly succeeds in keeping any third party out of the debates and the MSM will not cover third party candidates, he and they don't stand a chance. That's the way it is today , but wait till the reality and disappointment sets in when Pres Obama proves he's just Bush, only smoother and more intelligent. I predict Obama is going to be the catalyst for a massive third party movement within a year
I've heard Obama speak on his own (outside of prepared speeches, I'm talking about) and frankly he doesn't sound much brighter than Bush or McCain, in comparison with Ralph Nader who has a real brain and knows how to use it. Nader is very quick in his responses and he answers the question asked, contrary to other politicians. That's probably why he's sidelined.
Obama is not "much brighter than Bush or McCain?"
That's even an under-statement of how bright Obama isn't!
If you heard Obama slow down like a vinyl record on a dying grammophone during the debates with Hillary, you probably already know that Obama is literally mindless without a speech on the teleprompter.
Not bright?
Most of us can somehow keep talking if we absolutely have to, with a some sort of basic reference to reality, but when Obama can't figure out exactly how he should play his con game right now, he has nowhere to run, because reality never enters his "mind."
Obama is an "intellectual" law professor who never published a scholarly article, a lawyer who never tried a case, and a candidate with no principles or talent beyond telling everybody what they want to hear.
Obama is the idiot-savant of American politics, but when he can't play his simple games with flattery and promises, he's just an idiot.
Jacob Freeze
i certainly enjoy GV's keen mind and wit. a breath of Fresh Air in this race where reptelian mccain has stunk it up with the foul odor of decomposition and death.
I might add to Saint Gore's sage words, that after a casual look at McCain's exploits between his purchased respect in those Saigon whorehouses, his crashing of many jets, his lackluster perforance at the Naval Academy, his clumsy attempt at cleverness which resulted in the killing (burning alive) of 138 of our own sailors on board the USS Forrestal, his singing a song condemning America, written by his Vietnamese captors, his dumping the crippled wife who had waited for his return, his subsequent marriage to an unmarred rich daughter of an Arizona beer baron...well, one might get the notion that John McCain is not really all that wonderful. I'm fighting the feeling, but it overwhelms.
And of course I expected to see the usual lot of post-pubescent Naderites explaining why Gore Vidal is a loser, sell-out and fool. Mr Vidal, you can now enter the wonderful Common Dreams Pantheon of Sell-Outs along side other useless people like Howard Zinn, Normon Solomon, Dave Lindorf, et al.
The readers here are much, much smarter than you. Just ask them.
No one said they weren't smart. Not long ago, Lindorf wrote an intelligent and powerful piece explaining why he will never back these Democrats again. Michael Moore wrote a similar one. Until a month ago, Dave Lindorf was a Nader supporter!
But Nader was gaining some attention, his poll numbers were rising. Earth to Empire: "Can't have that!" And so BANG! they put in the elements of racism and Sarah Palinism. It worked. The scurrying around in the pen was a phenomenon to behold. That's the way the One-Party herds the masses. Alignment and contrast! It works beautifully. (you know, good-cop, bad-cop) I have warned Lindorf about this but.... he's a herd animal, he fell for it. Now he's back where he belongs. But eventually, someone is going to have to bite the bullet. Will it be our children?
Of course McCain is worse (so far). All I can say is "DUH." But take away McCain and what do you have? "It's the empire, stupid." Please don't say you haven't taken the time to look at Obama's record, which is the case of far too many Obama supporters. As Chomsky so aptly put it: Your consent is manufactured. Yes, a little R&D goes a long way in designing the best elections, where, if you're rich and powerful, you win either way! I have to hand it to the design team. They're the smart ones.
You could ask any one of these "smart" people - say, Chomsky or Solomon - they'd tell you the same thing: Yes, the One-Party designs these elections to keep real democracy out of reach for ordinary people, but they make you FEEL like you have a choice. None of these "smart" ones have illusions about Obama. They know. They just don't see a way out of it "this time." But if you ask them, they would tell you that Nader and his supporters are exactly what Democracy needs. So don't knock it!
What would this election look like if there were no Nader supporters calling out Obama on his nasty record. What if there was no real resistance at all to this charade of an election. No Cynthia McKinney speaking truth to power. No questions asked. Most high profile Obama supporters can't do that because they don't want to influence voters against the "lesser of two evils." It's too important, "this time."
If it weren't for Nader calling out Obama on a number of things, who would be doing it? Certainly not Solomon the smart (he really is). Norm finds it really, really hard to criticize Obama. He knows he has to somewhat but, you can tell, it's difficult for him. He's a delegate, for heaven's sake. But ask him: Norm, would you rather Nader and his supporters just go away and leave the elections - when more people are paying attention than at any other time - to just Democrats and Republicans, the One-Party? Norm, do you really believe that Nader supporters are a deficit to a progressive movement? Ask him after the election, though.
On the edge ...
Hank