Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiJohn 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.
99 Comments so far
Show AllLeeAnnG
Isn't it funny how those on the extreme right keep insisting that Obama is "the most liberal senator to ever be part of the legislature" and "the most liberal politician in the USA" and other unmitigated nonsense, while the farthest left are convinced that he is no different from Bush or McCain.
Of course, Obama is far, far, far from being a liberal! There's a site online that shows a political quadrant divided into left, right, authoritarian, and libertarian. Almost all the candidates with the exceptions of Nader, Kucinich, Ron Paul, and a few others fell into the right/authoritarian quadrant. Paul was in the right/libertarian, and Kucinich was in the left/libertarian, as (I recall) was Nader. I believe the placing of the candidate was due to their voting records and rhetoric. In fact, there was not a great deal of difference among the candidates, but Obama was to the left of Hillary Clinton, who was in turn to the left of Bush and McCain.
Undoubtedly, Obama is not the ideal candidate for progressives, liberals, and other leftists. However, considering what the corporate media and the McCain campaign have done with Obama, imagine a true progressive in this race!
Also imagine the world if Gore had won 8 years ago and then keep insisting that there's no difference. When things are truly dreadful, anyone who is substantially less than dreadful is an improvement. I have a lot of reservations about Obama, but he is more than the lesser of two evils. I don't actually think McCain is evil - unlike the nutjob loony toon he selected as his running mate - but he is certainly not presidential material. Obama is the best chance right now to move away from absolute insanity and toward a modicum of relief.
Leno says:
___ " McCain is doing so poorly, that
___ he's going to IKEA for his Cabinet "
Namaste
Mr. Vidal seems to do a good job of putting John McCain down into the lowest of human vices, leaving nothing to virtue.
Wow, I guess he believes that any one would be a better president than John McCain.
Probably especially Obama? Shining knight for truth and freedom and equality that he represents?
Heh.
How does anyone take pundits like Mr. Vidal seriously anymore? You have to be very intellectually repressed and dumbed down to buy into such nonsense.
Vidal, Limbaugh, here we are now.......entertain us!
A Child of Privilege
Played hard and fast
Born to rule
A lower caste
Bright enough
To be Knighted
By The Queen
Too Dim
To see
Beyond The Darkness
The unforeseen
Mr. Vidal should check his references; his basicaly correct comment about cattle roaming free referred to a descendant of the Maverick who made an "unintentional contribution to the American language".
From "The Longhorns" By J. Frank Dobie
* * * * * *
Samuel Maverick, the legend goes on, was in 1861 the largest landholder in the United States and owned more cattle than any other man in Texas. His ambition was to travel on his own land all the six hundred miles from San Antonio to El Paso and to stock it. After the Civil War he had a logical claim to tens of thousands of the unbranded cattle—“maverick stuff”—though little good it did him.
But, no, another form of the legend persists: In the beginning Maverick had nothing except “and old stag, a branding iron, a tireless perseverance, and a morality that was blind in one eye.” The stag was more prolific than Tommy Simpson’s Scotch cows, which always brought quintuplets, and the branding iron worked faster than a billy goat. A man had to get up early and ride late to do even a small share of the mavericking business when Maverick was on the range. He became “one of the cattle kings” and was the bull of the woods in “bovine aristocracy.”
The word “maverick,” says one writer, comes from the name of a great cattle driver whose herd, consisting of many thousands, stampeded in a snowstorm at a mountain pass ten thousand feet above the sea and were so scattered that he could not regather them. Their offspring came to be known as “Maverick’s cattle,” though he had no more power over them than Mother Carey had over Mother Carey’s chickens.
* * * * * *
But to get back to Samuel Maverick. In 1856 he sold out his stock of cattle, estimated at the original number, four hundred head, at six dollars around, range delivery. That is, the purchaser, one Toutant Beauregard, took the stock “as they ran.” If there were more than four hundred head, he was the gainer; if less, the loser. He hoped to find a considerable number of mavericks on Maverick’s range.
These were the last and only cattle that Samuel A. Maverick ever owned. His unintentional contribution to the American language was more important, perhaps, than his honorable and useful part in Texas affairs; at least it has done far more to keep his name green, and it has made him a notable factor in the history of a business he really never entered. ONE OF HIS DESCENDANTS, MAURY MAVERICK, recently published a book with the punning title, A Maverick American. The word in time came to mean, as applied to persons, one who has separated himself from the herd, or a mere stray.
Quotes end!
Whenever I read something insightful on a website (like Gore Vidal's words above) I am tempted to read what folks have posted in response. But more and more I resist that temptation, because the comments invariably do not illuminate the subject in question, and usually turn into a protracted catfight between two or three of the regulars (with very cool names), on a subject that has veered way off from the original. What a total waste of the potential of this amazing electronic forum.
So, I've taken on a new (way cool) handle, and I can waste electrons with the best of them. And.....if you're reading this Trotskycatbox or QwertyWarrior (or even you.... ShamanKafkaShampoo)....I'm ready! Bring it on! Let's overwhelm the "comments" section with our narcissistic quibbling. Extra points for misspellings, distance off topic, and Smarm.
Sincerely,
DimebagTyrannosaurus
da-veed:I was thinking much the same thing. I came on to say HAPPY BIRTHDAY to Gore Vidal and atheist Jew that I am, to add my "amen" to his. You said it well.
Your point is well taken, Trotskycatbox, but your argument has more holes in it than a roll of 1/4" mesh galvanized hardware cloth. You say:
"...the new disclosure that one Hank Wiggins, McCain's hand-picked fighter jet mechanic during the Vietnam War, was actually an Algerian freedom fighter and card-carrying SDS member by the name of Akbar Pierre Obama, Barack Obama's half-uncle."
It's true that this would explain a lot, but your assertion that Barack was AWOL on Sept 11 is simply not true. It's well-documented that he was at a Kindergarten Abortions fundraiser on that day. So, Trotskycatbox, you and your ilk (talking to you, ShamanKafkaShampoo and frodoSkank) are full of.....it!!!
Do you guys want to get some breakfast burritos at break?
Dimebag Tyrannosaurus
But where was Joe Biden??
Biden was holed up in an abandoned coal mine underneath Scranton PA. ; )
Dimebag---Excellent!
I believe we are now deeply entrenched within post-post-post modernism.
Very cool name indeed, da-veed Dimebag! I must admit I cringed a little at some of the insults Vidal slings at McCain here. Not that they are undeserved, but there are so many ways to skewer the man without name-calling. I tried that once, and it left me blue.
OK, I'm in.
How's this for off-topic:
McCain cares so little about the lives of innocent civilians living in faraway lands he actually dropped bombs on them in VietNam, and wants to drop bombs on more of them in other places, too - namely Iran - as evidenced by his outrageous and despicable "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran", which in my mind immediately disqualifies him for Prez, hence my preference for Obama even though I'm voting for McKinney.
Obama cares so little about the lives of innocent civilians living in faraway lands he actually voted for war appropriations repeatedly while posturing as anti-war (see his senate VOTING RECORD), and has talked about attacking Iran, Pakistan and putting MORE troops in Afghanistan (while posturing as anti-war), in part, because he buys into Bush's "war on terror" nonsense, which in my mind immediately disqualifies him for Prez.
"hence my preference for Obama even though I'm voting for McKinney."
WHAT? How can you say Obama and McKinney(*) in the same breath when they are nothing alike?
There's gotta be something in most people's water.
(*)She did vote FOR Bush's attack on Afghanistan, which I found surprising.
Tone it down on the hate a little, Sam. You might find you'll learn something rather than, like a bible-thumper, already knowing it all.
"Tone it down," for wcdevins is code for "stop using facts, they make me feel bad."
Sorry you think that, Hank. I find so many of the Nader supporters here thin-skinned, repetitive, and unwilling to engage in meaningful give-and-take with anyone but another defensive Nader supporter. As for unbridled emotion, some of you are the kings of vile diatribe; so many of you seem merely bent on picking fights. I am completely turned off by the tactics and attitude of so many of you here, and I am a progressive. I can only imagine how a more timid centrist or lifelong Democrat would react. Nader really needs better emmissaries than you guys. I doubt you are winning any friends.
All we have from Nader is words; many Naderites damn Obama for that but deify their man, a man who has never had to face the scrutiny a candidate actually within striking distance of the presidency. I will not even bother to explain why I think Nader, while his platform is strong, does not have the capacity for leadership required in a president, or why, even if he were magically annoited, he would still need to compromise with congress to get anything done. Compromise does not seem to be in his nature, an observation many of you argue as a positive for him. I think my vote for Obama will move my country further leftward than would my vote for Nader. I am sorry if you can't accept that.
I have expressed no "hate" at all. You simply don't like the message. Tough luck.
Rather than attack the messenger (me), why don't you address the message: Obama's Bush-accomplice VOTING RECORD.
Your approach is typical though. You might find you'll learn something if you address the MESSAGE rather than resorting to attack the messenger, just because you can't bear to hear the truth about the man (Walk on Water Obama).
Sam says: 'I have expressed no "hate" at all.'
I'll let the family here decide on that. Sorry you perceived my gentle suggestion as an attack, but you screaming Naderites here are way too defensive, possibly from thinking you have to constantly shout your fringe opinions. I don't mind the message, but the repetition ad nausem of the same lines really does get trying, and seems to prove you don't have much insight to offer. So many of you seem more interested in picking a fight rather than engaging in fruitful discussion. And you tend to only argue points you think you can win. For example, I asked this here: "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." No response.
If we can't get together on how to move forward with a progressive agenda (and method is really all we differ on) how can we move enough of the less-involved, less-devoted populace, the ones voting for Obama today, forward with us?
Hurray! WCDEVINS calls it like it is!
Naderites are too worried about sustaining their enormous egos to do something to try to make the country a little better.
WTF. I think I'll form my own party. I'll call it the Selfish A-hole Party. I'll be the only member. I'll write myself in as a candidate for president and vote for myself. That'll show 'em!
Why is Howard Zinn voting for Nader? He must not want to "make the country better" by voting for your ...
Iraq war funder, FISA bill supporter, $800,000,000,000 bail out for the rich and powerful, opponent of single-payer healthcare, off shore oil driller, Middle East war monger, receiver of 22 million dollars from the financial industry (more than McCain!) and millions from the health insurance industry.
What I've noticed here on the CD comments is the Nader supporters are full of facts and the Obama supporters are full of ..... emotions. They say things like "I'll form the selfish A-hole Party." Isn't that a dumb thing to write? The writer must be in third grade.
They can't defend Obama so they just end up being stupid, instead.
Come on Obama supporters, tell us why voting for Obama will "save the country!" Inquiring minds want to know.
Why is Howard Zinn voting for Nader? Because he lives in a solid state that's not up for grabs. Otherwise he'd vote for Obama I believe.
Howard Zinn has not said he voting for Nader. Where'd you get that? I am certain he never said Nader has his vote this time.
Most people here never speak a word about the vote-flipping, easily-hackable, riggable Repug-owned and controlled electronic voting machines. Most people here seem to like to pretend we have fair, honest and legitimate elections when we don't...considering the last 2 presidential elections were stolen. Why would 2008 be any different when the voting system is unchanged?
Denial on this issue seems to be the dominant approach on here. I'm one of the few who writes about it as often as I can to try to get others to come out of their Denial on this issue. Because what does your Denial accomplish for you?
THESE DAMNABLE MACHINES BELONG IN THE GARBAGE! WE SHOULD BE VOTING WITH PAPER AND PEN WITH THE VOTES COUNTED IN FULL PUBLIC VIEW. PERIOD.
WVA Vote Flipping Caught on Tape!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q9NSVUu8nk
Here's a video of a man speaking about his vote being flipped in West Virginia:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NJO8RhRl2E
Early Voting Sees Reports of Voter Intimidation, Machine Malfunctions
(Interview with Mark Crispin Miller begins after newscast)
"Early voting has begun, and problems are already emerging at the polls. In West Virginia, voters using touchscreen machines have claimed their votes were switched from Democrat to Republican. In North Carolina, a group of McCain supporters heckled a group of mostly black supporters of Barack Obama. In Ohio, Republicans are being accused of trying to scare newly registered voters by filing lawsuits that question their eligibility. We speak to NYU professor Mark Crispin Miller, author of Loser Take All: Election Fraud and the Subversion of Democracy."
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/22/votes
There is absolutely no doubt that George W. Bush is not now and has never been the elected president of the united states. I didn't realize there was any living person that was unaware of this fact.
There is no way to Peace. Peace is the Way.
Sam. Yesterday, you wrote causticly that I know nothing about Nader. My post was meant to present a notion that within the political spectrum, Nader is outside the Moderate middle majority. I don't call myself a 'Progressive' because 'progress' should be for everybody. Neither can I call myself 'Liberal', (though I support liberal application of governmental representation and authority), because the liberal moniker is taken to apply to those who believe their view is as sacrosanctly unquestionable as status quo conservatism. This positions me in the Moderate range where I conclude the political leanings of most citizens fall within, the majority.
One important difference I find between Obama and McCain is how expediency defines their character and judgment calls. Polls indicate McCain leads Obama on only one issue, the Iraq War and National Security. McCain fortifies his position by claiming "The surge has worked" and persistently charges "Obama still won't admit being wrong about the surge." Right? The truth is the Surge isn't working, or the reduction of violence is attributable to other factors. Both candidates know the surge isn't working, but McCain 'grandstands' whereas Obama admits the surge is working as a matter of expediency. Even the perception of the surge working has to be preserved in order for an eventual resolution of the Iraq War to occur. While Obama makes a wise judgment call, McCain inflates his political self on a lie. In other words, this is an important, defining difference between the two leading candidates which those who call themselves liberal or progressive or moderate should be open to consider.
I'd like to point out that "hacking" is not the best word. I heard the show,DemNow on WBAI this morning, and I,too have been screaming "why are the Dems not screaming about this from the top of the party?And have had 8years to work on it". Check out "Off The Hook",WBAI, on Wednesday night, 7pm ET,www.wbai.org for all kinds of hacker info and related news. It's produced by 2600 magazine www.2600.com which also has an internet "radio" show. The host is Emanuel Goldstein (name sound familiar? Yup)
If Obama had voted against the war appropriations in the Senate, he would have been skewered as anti-patriotic, and never would have been nominated.
Yes, Obama's agreeability to the totally bogus "War on Terror" is atrocious. But once again, in order to be a viable candidate, he has to go along with the current theme. It's the system that's the problem. And unfortunately, the rethuglicans have damaged it beyond recognition, and they must be ejected. If that means electing the hawkish but pleasant-sounding Obama, then so be it. Until we can fundamentally change the system, starting with election finance reform, we're sorta shit out of luck here.
As for voting for McKinney, I would rather have my vote go toward strengthening the Green party, which is an actual political party with some real office-holders, than go towards propping up Nader's ineffectual egoism.
You've made some sound comments, Bellington. And Sam has, too. Yeah, Kucinich is the better -- much more liberal and for the middle-class than Obama is (so far). But I'm casting my vote for the candidate we have, not the candidate we should have and then the REAL work begins. We have to make Obama listen to us, We the People, rather than the corporations. Not an easy task. And if McCain steals the election (Keep tags on the election problems, gang, at Bradblog.com), I think we have to be prepared to go out into the street. No more Mr. or Ms. Nice Guy. Be prepared to be out there next Wednesday, if necessary.
Peace hugs,
Kate Anne
We've been hearing this argument for far too long.
We have been in the streets. I've been in the street and offices as well. Were you there? Remember, Congress received calls - 100 to 1 - against the bailout, yet Obama (with voters secure in his pocket) ignored them. Do you think AFTER he's elected he will change into something else? Where is this coming from? If it's about winning, why would he be stabbing his base in the back? Your argument isn't credible. It's full of hot air, wishful thinking.
It's time to draw the line. What does it take for you people?
Here are some yr 2000 words from the above author, Gore Vidal.
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/09/20/vidal/index2.html
"How could a Ralph Nader story be interesting? He has been turned into the national scold, just as I am referred to as a "gadfly." I assume that's because intellectual is too difficult a word to spell. He has been made the bore of all time. Even I, who quite admire him in some ways, find him very boring. But he's not boring; he's presented as a bore, as a nag. Seat belts! I'm here in New York, and every time I get into a taxicab these voices come on that say "buckle up," I think of Ralph Nader. Now this has destroyed him! You have made him the bore of all time.
It's all about getting rid of anybody who wants change, and you create an aura about him. I've been demonized for 50 years, I'm aware of how it's done.
In your book, the character Caroline bemoans the fact that both Churchill and Mussolini are journalists by trade, thus they "thought in headlines." I hate to keep bringing up your distant cousin, but Al Gore of course also was a journalist by trade, initially.
Well he was filling in. He was running for president, I gather, from the family from the very beginning. From the time he was at St. Albans. A school I attended, some time before him. That's what you do when the family trade is politics. Nobody runs to be a member of the House of Representatives. You run to see how far you can go. I don't think of him as ever being a serious journalist.
You said earlier he had been reaching out to you, and trying to get in touch with you and you are seeing Karenna, his daughter, soon ...
She's coming to the opening of the play on Sunday. I suppose in due course I'll see him, but I'm really interested in the crack-up of a political system. Each year it's worse and worse. Each election gets worse -- and that's what we should be talking about, when a society is totally corrupt, in its political life, and practically everything else, too. How do you rectify it?
How do you rectify it then?
Well, as I described, an act of Congress, you can force the networks, cable, to provide free time.
How do you get Congress to do that? One would think, first of all, that Congress might be interested in taking some of the power away from the corporations and putting it back on Capitol Hill or at the White House as it was in the novel you just wrote.
Woodrow Wilson foresaw this, curiously enough. He was a pretty tiresome, self-righteous man, but he did say that he had wanted to be a great domestic president, and of course he ended up as a war president. And he said we are going to end up, the entire country, in the hands of Wall Street. The very people we Democrats are in politics to curb their excesses. And it happened ... So how could anybody in Congress -- unless he comes from a very small state, it's rather expensive to run for office -- there's nothing they can do, the big players are all there, the Finance Committee, the Senate just exists to make sure that great corporations pay practically no tax on their profits.
So Congress will only act when the American people ...
And the American people are insufficiently informed to be able to get their act together.
And they would become informed by the media ...
But the media won't do it, they're all run by the corporations, so it's all locked up. So that just leaves Noam Chomsky and me.
salon.com | Sept. 20, 2000
- - - - - - - - - - - -
About the writer
Jake Tapper is the Washington correspondent for Salon News.
Sound Off
Send us a Letter to the Editor
Related stories
"A dangerous family"
Gore Vidal talks about Cousin Al Gore, the evils of corporate America and why he's supporting Ralph Nader.
Yes, YES, YES! To the streets! Then STAY in the streets until they re-vote. If enough people are there, are peaceful, and refuse to leave---we win.
"If Obama had voted against the war appropriations in the Senate, he would have been skewered as anti-patriotic, and never would have been nominated."
Good! Then that would have been EXCELLENT. He should never have been nominated to begin with.
Kucinich should have been nominated since he's a true traditional Democrat, but since the Corporate Big Business DEAD Democratic Party run from him as fast as they can and want to have nothing to do with him, he would never be nominated by these scum of the Earth anti-US Constitution, Bush-accomplice people.
"It's the system that's the problem. And unfortunately, the rethuglicans have damaged it beyond recognition, and they must be ejected."
WITH THE COMPLETE HELP OF THE REPUG/BUSH-ACCOMPLICE DEMS, which you seem to want to leave out. The Repugs have done none of this by themselves. It has been with the full complicity and enabling of their good friends/buddies in the Dead Democratic Party with their yes votes, their complicity and their silence. That's the reality. And the Repugs AND their enabling Dems should be ejected. Both. The Dems deserve absolutely NOTHING in this "election." Nothing whatsoever. They deserve to be kicked to the curb. Every goddamned one of these Bush-accomplice scum. They have been miserable failures for We The People and the US Constitution since 2000.
It seems many Nader supporters prefer their candidate non-viable. No voting record to pore over, no compromises made in the name of legislating to fume over, no triangulating to get in position to be elected to curse at, no analysis by everyone and his uncle about his past, his family, his experience, his wardrobe, his pastor, his friends, his party, his supporters, his fitness to lead, virtually every word he has ever uttered to be dissembled. This leaves a flawless icon to be idolized. Such probing questions may expose a mere mortal, just like the rest of us. It appears they are afraid of seeing him like that.
MKRIO
Gore Vidal is, and always was, one of the most incisive minds of the political
landscape. All the Cucucucuckooos who post comments take notice.
McCain is not only stupid but also a throwback to 1950's America.
What does getting shot down and enduring pow status say about him?
He was brave. But, unfortunately, that is not a specific requirement, or
even an advantage, in being president. He is no whiz. He is somewhat illiterate.
He is not a nice person. (Look up his marital record.) He is against women in
his voting record. He has chosen a bimbo for VP.
Vidal, on the other hand, has never sold himself out for anybody or anything.
And, for all the Naderites out there. How would things have turned out
if Nader had NOT been on the 2000 ballot.
Nader, a crusader whose influence helped millions of people, forgot who he
was and what he stood for.
If Obama wins he will inherit the worst conditions this country has been in
in almost a century.
If McCain wins, the middle class will get effed as usual.
You pays your money, you makes your choice. (Remember that phrase, anybody?)
God, if such an entity exists, bless Gore Vidal.
conneide@yahoo.com sez: "How would things have turned out if Nader had NOT been on the 2000 ballot."
***
-Gore would have received more votes than Bush, just as he did with Nader ON the ballot.
-300,000 registered Democrats in Florida would have voted for Bush.
-A couple hundred thousand more Democrats in Florida would have been purged by Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris.
-Faux News would still have called the election for Bush before it was over, setting the media default as Bush the winner and Gore the disgruntled opponent trying to "steal" the office.
-Cheney's hunting buddy and his mates on the Reagan/Bush I Supreme Court would still have shut down the Florida vote recount.
I hope God does bless Gore Vidal. But I think She would recognize that Vidal's essay is a polemic on the phony McCain, and contains not even the most oblique reference to Mr. Nader.
Everybody writes in the Age of the Internet, and then a writer shows us McCain's "round, blank, Little Orphan Annie eyes."
Instead of "writing" the next comment, maybe you should re-read Gore Vidal's essay, and then ask yourself if you really have anything to contribute to our common fund of understanding.
Jacob Freeze
And everyone feels free to become a critic.
There is no way to Peace. Peace is the Way.
John McCain became who he is in the killing fields of Vietnam. He has never expressed remorse for the destruction done to that country by the Unnited States. McCain is always talking about "fighting"; he seems untroubled by the idea of killing tens of thousands of foreigners, even when these people have offered no threat to the "national security" of the Homeland. MCCain is a moral monster. He belongs in the past. Let us be done with him next Tuesday--send him back to Arizona as still a US senator..
In some respects, Obama comes from a better future. But, because he is still mostly of the present he is bound to disappoint. He will compromise when he ought to stand firm, and he will capitulate to his corporate masters when they demand his submission. He has already made clear his willingness to serve the Empire. Obama will be as "liberal" as progressive constituencies force him to be. Many people seem to think that it will be enough to get him elected to see a liberal program of government enacted; this view is sadly misguided..
Having said all this it still makes sense to choose Obama over Nader or other third party candidates who have no chance of office at this juncture in US history. I admire Nader and I think he has genuine progressive instincts, but the fact is an American voter has to consider the world at large when she is casting her vote, and the world at large can't stand four more years of monstrous madness (which is all we would get from McCain). It is true that Obama is most likely a "lesser evil," but a lesser evil MIGHT translate into the saving of thousands of lives in the hinterlands of the Empire.
Notice I emphasize MIGHT--I am aware that before Bush, Clinton and Gore inflicted horrors on Iraq...
So I say vote Obama where you have to, vote Nader where you can afford to, and on the Wed after the election start organizing to hold Obama's feet to the fire...
"So I say vote Obama where you have to, vote Nader where you can afford to, and on the Wed after the election start organizing to hold Obama's feet to the fire..."
Sigh.
One should vote their CONSCIENCE (and vote Nader/Gonzalez) regardless of where they live. Stop this kowtowing to the Bush-accomplice DEAD Democratic Party who has done nothing but shit on us and told us to "fuk off" since 2000.
When has any politician's feet been held to the fire? THAT IS A MYTH.
I wish people would stop putting that crap out there. It's bull shit.
Because "we" have supposedly been "holding their feet to the fire" since 2000 and you see the state of thngs, don't you? (Need examples: Impeachment, 2 occupations, Wall Street Bailout, USAPATRIOT ACT, torture, illegal syping, do I need to go on?)
The ONLY people who will hold Obama's "feet to the fire" are the SAME people who hold the Bush's regime's "feet to the fire." They are: The corporations, the military industrial complex and the lobbyists.
I understand Sam and I agree that Nader would be the best available person for the office. Maybe with Cynthia McKinney as his running mate. I may yet vote for him as a matter of conscience. Regardless of who is selected on the fourth I’m still expecting martial law before Jan. 20. Or not.
Just out of curiosity, what do you imagine would be the outcome of Nader being elected if all else remained the same? Let’s just say, for the sake of discussion, that 90% of the voters have a mysterious epiphany in the next day or so and everyone writes in Ralph Nader. Then what?
How would he get anything done?
Could he ask the people who put him in office for a mandate giving him dictatorial powers in order to enact the changes that need to happen?
Would Congress, in sheer awe of the magic trick that got him elected, just simply agree to pass any legislation he suggested?
If he said, “give me a single payer health care bill to sign”, would they simply comply out of respect for the people who thrust him into office? Would the insurance companies hang their heads in shame and apologize for all the harm they’ve done?
If he demanded conversion to solar, wind and geothermal power immediately would the oil and coal industries leap to do his bidding?
If he gave the auto industry four years to replace all the non commercial vehicles in the country with electric cars would they move heaven and earth to accomplish it?
When he informed congress and the judiciary that all laws, bills and legislature recognizing corporations as persons had to be rescinded immediately would they simply bow to his demand?
When he announced that all troops had to be withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan, now, and that all our bases in foreign lands had to be closed, what would be the response from the DOD?
That’s just a very short list of a few things that need to happen yesterday. How will a solitary, progressive representative of the people achieve any of these things mired in the regressive quicksand of entrenched, fascist, corporate controlled politics?
Perhaps after a year or two, if he’s allowed to live that long, of being stonewalled by congress and the MIC he could call upon the nation to rise up against the rest of the government since it was preventing him from making the changes the people wanted.
You know that’s what it will take don’t you? Violent revolution. Same as it ever was.
We are stuck on the bloody wheel of history which only travels one road and always returns whence it came.
All that being said, I think it matters little in the long term who becomes the next amerikan emperor. Because there isn’t any long term to work with. Climate change and the ensuing extinction event have reached and passed the proverbial tipping point. In probably less than fifty years, perhaps less than twenty, governments and nations, per se, will become basically irrelevant.
For the first time in history, thanks to capitalism, the end-of-the-world doomsayers finally have a leg upon which to stand.
There is no way to Peace. Peace is the Way.
Nice essay. Of course Nader could get all those things done. Because he walks on water, dontcha know? As far as the ensuing extinction, it's still too early to tell what the exact results of global warming (or climate change, if you prefer) will be. I remember in 1973 there were people saying hungry masses from the cities would soon be fanning out across the countryside stealing any food they could find.
"One shoud vote their conscience"--always! Because what? Because it's better to be wholly sincere in one's convictions no matter the practical consequences? In other words, even if McCain wins the presidency, if one voted third party, one can console oneself with the principle that "at least I did the right thing!" I don't understand how this position benefits anyone other than oneself..
I'm not in the least enamored of the Democratic Party but I think one has no choice but to practice "cynical reason." For me, the politics of conscience has little to do with voting. Conscience is what carries one through all other kinds of political activity. Voting, as Thoreau pointed out, is a kind of gaming--the point is to win, and if the best candidate (Nader) can't win, I'll throw in my lot with the second best option.
Politicians have had their "feet held to the fire" on many occasions.For example, LBJ became a civil rights president because of serious pressures from below. We agree that this model of politics has definite limits.But if we wholly discount it why bother to vote at all? Indeed, why not dismiss the whole game of representative government?
We also agree that the Democratic Party has done little to oppose Bush's worst excesses. Whatever pressure has been put on the Democrats it isn't enough! So I see your complaint as really being about the disorganized state of progressive constituencies...
"Politicians have had their "feet held to the fire" on many occasions."
NOT SINCE 2000 they haven't, since the Bush Dictatorship began and that was the time reference I was referring to.
Once again, no mention of Obama's VOTING RECORD in your comments anywhere.
The so-called "Democrats" in congress expect you and others to vote for them REGARDLESS of what they do and have done for Bush. They take your vote for granted. In fact, where I live, Bush-accomplice Pelosi has not even campaigned here BECAUSE SHE KNOWS SHE DOESN'T NEED TO. She knows she will be re-elected regardless of any challenge from Cindy Sheehan, whom I've already voted for.
These Republicrat politicians are correct. Most of you will continue to vote for them every voting cycle out of ***FEAR*** and because they still have a D behind their name (even when most of them are Republicans). You will continue to vote for them even though most of them don't stand for anything a true progressive would want, you'll continue to vote for them and make excuses for doing so one voting cycle after the other.
So, don't blame me for your willful-ignorance and willfull Denial as to what the facts are, as in **************************OBAMA'S VOTING RECORD.***************************
obama has cast some atrocious votes. He has shown by such votes that he has it within him to be a typical US politician--opportunistic to a fault. But I did say that he will be as liberal as progressive constituencies force him to be. He will only move left if pushed. I think this would be true of almost any Democratic candidate...Hell, if Nader were to become President the same principle would still apply: the very structure of the US government, not to mention the nearly overwhelming influence of money powers, makes compromise and "centrism" the order of the day. In short, if the people want a responsive government they have to agitate to make it so--the government is always more willing to heed the interests of the corporate masters and the warriors. On that we agree
Yes, indeed. It's the system that has to change, not just the president. Will that happen in our lifetime? And how can we help that happen? Will it take some monstrous force bigger than the Republican or Democratic party, or the United States itself?
"But I did say that he will be as liberal as progressive constituencies force him to be. He will only move left if pushed."
That's just grandiose, delusional, false hope wishful-thinking.
I heard the same stuff about the Dems and what they were supposedly going to do for us before the 2006 "election." Since they became the majority and despite our phone calls, faxes, e-mails, mass protests, sit-ins, you-name-it NONE of what the Dem kool-aid drinkers had WISHED would happen AGAINST Bush has happened despite all the forcing and pushing "we" have done. The Dems have ignored it all. Period.
The lastest example: The $850 BILLION Wall Street bailout. Despite all our "pushing" and "forcing" of the Dems INCLUDING OBAMA, what happened? Obama actively worked FOR the bailout and voted for it as did the MAJORITY of Dems. They don't give a damn what we think and that INCLUDES Obama. And one would think that you would have figured that out by now considering the dismal state of things, due to the Bush-accomplice Dems.
yup.
I just wanted to use the phrase "Joe the blowhard," but that's so embarrassingly tame compared to almost anything Vidal utters right off the top of his head.
He's not a cliche-monger (like McCain and so many posters in this string, I'm afraid, though I may only have read the first and last). Gore Vidal is a great writer, and part of the greatness is the havoc it's wreaked for almost a century in teeny-tiny minds and great dopes.
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.
You can try and insult Howard Zinn, who puts his opinions in his own name.
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
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.
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.
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
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!
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 ....
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.
He must have one of the
__ W I M P I E S T
__ salutes ever attempted
Namaste
Beautiful.
As usual, Mordechai gets to the crux of the actual article while others turn Selection 2008 into a referendum on Nader.
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 :)
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!)
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
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.
"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.
"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.
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 is not the candidate of white privilege.
Because he can win.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.