Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati100 Million Suspects
In the end, the decision couldn't be clearer. This is more than just a choice between parties, or ideologies, or policy positions. It's a choice between philosophies and worldviews. It's a choice grounded in moral psychology. We will choose between different portions of our own brains, between our baser instincts and what used to be called "the angels of our better nature."
In the end, this election is a referendum on trusting the electorate. It's a referendum on democracy itself.
One candidate represents collaboration, optimism... and yes, "change." The other represents fear and greed, and his campaign reflects the lower-order impulses that have guided his party and given it success. They've triggered fear in us so effectively for so long that they can't believe it's not working this time. They're still frantically sending memo after memo to our lizard brains: Khalidi, Ayers, redistribution... be afraid! And the more this old strategem fails, the harder they try.
Now they're trying to make us afraid of ourselves. That's what the ACORN con is all about. That's why McCain called it "one of the greatest frauds in voter history" and suggested that its "destroying the fabric of democracy." Sure, it's a calculated diversion, an attempt to delegitimize any Democratic victory and encourage resistance. But it also reflects a fundamental belief, one held deep in the heart of the powerful elite McCain represents:
Be afraid of the voters... voters are unpredictable... voters might do anything. We can't let that happen.
You probably remember Rumsfeld's line: "Democracy is messy." But you may not remember when he said it. It was in response to widespread looting of banks, offices, and museums. That says a lot. To this crowd, "democracy" is a violent mob. Representative government is an unpleasant necessity, not a value or an ideal. The rest of us think "war is too important to be left to the generals." They think self-government is too important to be left to the voters.
To some extent this is nothing more than greed and lust for power, the misuse of conservatism as a cover for naked self-interest. But it also reflects a difference in political philosophy that goes back to Locke and Hobbes. Their equation of democracy with mob rule, so clearly mirrored in Rumsfeld's comment, helps explain why they feel morally entitled to lie, cheat, and steal votes. To them, voters aren't reflections of a democratic ideal. They're suspects, threats, enemies. They're the Iraqi mob looting the Museum of Antiquities.
That's why they've condemned Obama's donors, too -- all 30 million of them. Somebody might have used a phony credit card! Never mind the lobbyists that crowd McCain/Palin's campaign staff, or McCain's apparent violation of his own "reform" laws during the primary. Lobbyists and big-money contributors are "us." But grassroots donors are the unruly mob the candidate will have to please if he's elected. That makes them 30 million "cronies," to go along with that list of 100 million suspects.
Voters are guilty until proven innocent. That's why they hate voter-registration organizations like ACORN. To them, minorities are nothing more than an especially untrustworthy subset of an unsavory crowd. The lines at the polls might as well be a perp walk.
The only thing that makes a citizen more of a threat than voting is "voting while black." That's why they can sleep at night after creating long waiting lines at "separate but equal" polling places in states like Ohio, despite the fact that what they're doing is no different from what was done under Jim Crow segregation. That's why they can live with themselves after creating photo ID requirements in Florida that disproportionately exclude minority voters (who are less likely to drive and therefore to have a driver's license.)
It's also why we fight. Don't let up. Vote. Help others vote. Bring camcorders, cell phones, and cameras to your polling place for some election "sousveillance" (surveillance from below.) Document the intrusions. You can sign up here to help track problems, or you can participate in the Election Protection Wiki described here. And work hard over the next few days to get out the vote.
Democracy isn't a subversive activity. It's our way of life, our highest ideal. They will try to overrule the will of the people on Nov. 4. Don't let them.
Democracy. It's the "real America."
92 Comments so far
Show AllWhat crap! We don't have democracy here... We have a republic (representative government). Democracy means literally "The peoples" (demo) "strength" (kratie). What's strong in America is finance. Which is why the American government might more accurately be described an oligarchy. Where the money power has only to buy a handful of people to have all the rest slaved and killed. Presently we suffer what has come to be known as corporate fascism which is the absolute dominance of a few over industry, trade, government bureaucracies and the media. This article is a keen example of the vapid nonsense that's pushed by this mass media. The analysis within is puddle deep.
rocyahsoul@yahoo.com
www.lamegame.name
Daniel Vincent Kelley
The #1 campaign reform we need is an end to the electoral college. No more red states and blue states; no more swing states; people will be much more free to vote for who they want. So many people who don't vote because they do live in a red or blue state will be able to do so. It would be great if they could vote outside the box but that's another issue we have to address in time. How do we go about ending the electoral college? We do seem to be in a vicious circle, don't we? This is why I am an ardent supporter of alternative progressive parties!!
A Constitutional amendment is required to get rid of it. Alternatively, Congress can pass a law mandating that a state's electoral votes are divided proportionate to a state's popular vote, in effect making the election a popular vote. Another way is to convince every state legislature to pass the same law...right now I think just 2 award their electoral votes this way.
-----------------------------------
I think, therefore I am dangerous.
That's what I thought; this is what I mean by a "vicious circle" - it's always the very people who are oppressing us who are in power to stop the oppression!
The only "electable" candidates are pre-chosen as "front-runners" by our elite and then, we get to vote for the electors that will cast the actual votes -- though they are not required to tie their votes to ours. Alternative candidates get very few if any electors and so can't win if we all voted for them. In short, our electoral system is a joke, a sham. As is our democracy. The ruling elite will select the candidate with whom they feel their investment is safest. The real power however lies with the state, those unelected, behind the scenes high level apparatchiks who decide what is possible for our elected officials to do and what isn't.
As this corrupt system implodes due to conflicts with economic, ecological and political reality, it will be up to all of us to build a real alternative on the ground. We can learn much for the Argentine experience but we must come together and build real community support systems that can give our neighbors some semblance of hope and security in the very hard time ahead no matter which corporate candidate is selected.
The Jaded Prole
FREE AMERICA
REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY
It's amazing how the Nader voters fail to talk about the fact that there are 3rd party candidates ala Nader also trying to run for seats in the House and even a couple in the Senate but is Nader campaigning with them? NO. Would Nannie, progressiveparty, and the rest of these Nader die-hard agree to the idea of building up coalitions at the local level and moving it on up to the federal level such as electing local pols ala Nader be they mayors, sheriffs, teachers, judges, council people, lawyers for the people and not the corporate, etc ... and moving up to regional levels such as state senator, governor, or even US House representative and eventually on to the top level? Sorry if I'm saying too much but I was thinking that you Nader die-hards might want to consider paying more attention to your local races for a change. With abysmal ratings as low as 10%, it's no wonder you and I are all stuck with sellouts in both parties. Sure, I might have voted for Nader but his refusal to campaign with a couple of local candidates who share his philosophy and his lack of helping people like Cindy Sheehan shows that Nader is having a mental problem of running once every 4 years instead of building a coalition that would otherwise make his candidacy and even his presidency worth fighting for and supporting. Wouldn't you agree?
I have run for city council. I support alternative party candidates in my home state. CD doesn't have articles about local races. I also have worked very hard on two ballot initiative campaigns this year.
Nader says he is going to do that after this election, but primarily focusing on Congress I think.
-----------------------------------
I think, therefore I am dangerous.
ZachP, thanks for the info. I think he should have started this 16 years ago. At least his chances of winning presidency in 1996 and 2000 would have been greatly improved. A 2001-2008 difference between Nader and Bush is indeed huge. Oh well, better late than never to spread the focus, right?
I agree, I wish he had already done this back when I was a kid. But it will be exciting to be part of it now that I'm graduating college in a month :-)
-----------------------------------
I think, therefore I am dangerous.
Nader has already done more for the Republic than really should be required of any Citizen.
Also, I think there is some faultiness in ~Nathan's ~ premise.
Many people ARE very involved in their local elections as "third party people".
The focus on CD is on the Presidential Election, therefore that is the focus of the comments.
There aren't any third party candidates in my local elections...or if there were, they didn't get on the ballot.
-----------------------------------
I think, therefore I am dangerous.
I was glad to vote for Rebecka Kennedy in Arkansas.
Green party candidate for US.Senator. Yeah...
Voted AGAINST sen.pryor.He deserved that.
ZachP November 2nd, 2008 12:12 pm
"There aren't any third party candidates in my local elections...or if there were, they didn't get on the ballot."
There weren't any on my ballot this year either. The Green party seems to be somewhat in disarray, at least in some areas, this year.
Lobo Gris
I live in a Midwestern state and the McCain/Palin signs are running about ten to one against Obama. The reason is life. The Democratic support of abortion rights without limitations is hurting the Democrats greatly. It’s not just the fundamentalists thinking this way. The belief here in life is widespread among many people. If Obama loses here it will be directly linked to the abortion issue.
For me there is NO candidate running that is for life.
My overarching concern is life. Not just the limited view of life as often debated in the death penalty and abortion, but a full and expanded view of life that is basic to our very existence. The life view that understands that everything is alive in spirit (energy), and therefore everything is connected through spirit . Environmental degradation is anti-life, human degradation is anti-life, spiritual degradation is anti-life. Today America is in the grip of a death culture and ONLY a life culture is big enough to fix it.
We all understand that we are approaching a critical mass, life or death. Global warming can lead to an extinction event, and nuclear war can lead to an extinction event. ONLY an appreciation of life in it's fullest sense, and a collective determination to sustain it, will move us away from the brink of extinction. Ideology at both ends of the political spectrum blocks this realization. Think about this, it's very important at this critical time in our history.
Well said. The most truly pro-life candidate this year-- by your definition- was Dennis Kucinich. It always amazes me how short-sighted people can be to have those "protect human life" stickers on their cars and houses when at the same time they fully support the latest insane war and live the most flagrantly acquisitive lifestyle.
As far as the signs go, I wouldn't put much stock in that. Republicans like big signs. Around here every big empty lot has huge Republican candidate signs-- because big developers and landowners tend to like Republicans. But they are not the majority in this liberal county.
Good luck, you won't find a candidate that both opposes abortion and war.
-----------------------------------
I think, therefore I am dangerous.
I'd also wish them "good luck" with contradictory beliefs.
If we see life in a "spirit" and "connected" way, then there is absolutely no utility at all in the Government getting involved in the internal reproductive systems of Women.
The Spirit is not harmed in any way by failure to ever attain consciousness.
There is actually an argument in this belief FOR easy and early abortion -through ingestion of chemicals, not surgery.
De-coupling the choice to end a pregnancy from all the current social-to-do would allow it to become a true choice -which would benefit the Spirit.
Let us not forget that it is the Woman who is the actual conscious Spirit here.
Men should never have gotten involved in any of this.
And therefore Government should not have either.
Matti, spirit is life. The taking of life of any kind is a serious matter and must be seen in the context of the whole of life. Disrespecting life in any manner, such as clear cutting a forest, taking the top off of mountains, or wholesale abortions, violates life and becomes the death culture. Life is the whole and one cannot select a part of the whole to violate, and claim one is for life. There are no sacred cows. One is either for life or death. That is the choice to be made.
Reason is understood in the context of life. A dying tree may be harvested for needed wood. A mine may be used for needed resources if mined with respect and scale. A fetus may be terminated as an individual choice in the case of rape, incest, or the life if a mother. Reasonable need is a given. Wholesale exploitation is not. The time is short to reverse the death culture, it is threatening the existence of life on earth. Embracing an anti-life position for power or profit is deeply destructive and an extremist position. When extinction is threatened, extremists are very dangerous. Choose life, time is short.
History consistently proved that only a great enough disaster can bring real change, the Great Depression in America, the two world wars bringing changes to Europe and the world, the defeat in WWI for old Russia, the total collapse and near disintegration of the acien regime of China, the economic "end of the road" for Latin America, etc.
It is very likely that either of our presidential candidates will bring us a big enough disaster to move history along. Take heart, PROGRESSIVES. From this point on we just can't lose.
There is a good chance that we will see the end of the two party system in our lifetime. The signs are there. First, according to the author of the above article, the Republicans are fearful, and are seeing democracy as "De-Mob-is-Crazy", a rationalization of fascist rule. Second, we progressives can see that the Democrats are in despair, and are treating democracy as "De-mob-is-easy" (easily conned, that is). There isn't very far to go from here, the much needed DISASTER is nigh.
I say eight years of Bush/Cheney qualifies don't you?
Nader can win....... The voters will decide.
Nader will change things.
Nader is our only hope.
Nader is the only choice.
Fight the Two-party system.
VOTE NADER 2008… You’ll be glad you did and so will I…
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
Fight the two party system? That will take a constitutional amendment, as a previous poster noted. But take heart: many constitutional amendments have been enacted since the last time a third party candidate was elected president.
I already did vote for Nader, and am proud to have done so. I have 2 yard signs on my front yard: Vote Nader / Gonzales. You should too!
I early voted too. It felt great voting for Ralph Nader. It was on a PAPER BALLOT also..more the better..
The actual collapse of the financial world, the Wall Street, might have been the disaster I am looking for. It is a pity we are not going to see that before the Fourth of November as steps taken by Paulson and the FED up-to-date have the delaying effects. Therefore the next four years are critical. Both parties may reach their wit's end together, thus paving the way for a third choice in the next election, 2012 election, that is.
Just as USAn had said in another thread. If the second Great Depression takes place in the next four years with Obama in control then Americans' last hope is dashed as both parties will be seen as FAILURES. No American voters can say: "Let's give the Democrats a chance", or, "Let's give the Republicans a chance". By then people will see that both parties had their chances and had blown them. The representations of the money-class, have failed.
It is not enough that we progressives see the coming of the end for the two parties, the AVERAGE Americans must see it. I believe the 2012 election is ours.
But Nader won't run in 2012. Any idea who will take up his banner?
-----------------------------------
I think, therefore I am dangerous.
I'm hoping for Matt Gonzalez!! (:
.
http://www.votenader.org/issues/
About Matt Gonzalez
Matt Gonzalez was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 2000 representing San Francisco's fifth council district. From 2003 to 2005, he served as Board of Supervisors President. A former public defender, Gonzalez is managing partner of Gonzalez & Leigh, a 7-attorney practice in San Francisco that represents individuals and organizations in mediation, arbitration, and administrative proceedings before state and federal regulatory bodies. Gonzalez graduated from Columbia University and received a JD from Stanford Law School.
About the Nader/Gonzalez Campaign
The Nader/Gonzalez independent presidential candidacy will be on the ballot in 45 states, is polling at 5-6 percent nationally, and a new Time/CNN poll shows Ralph Nader polling 8 percent in New Mexico, 7 percent in Colorado, 7 percent in Pennsylvania, and 6 percent in Nevada -- all key battleground states.
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008… You’ll be glad you did and so will I…
.
What say you America ?????
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008… You’ll be glad you did and so will I…
.
Are you all 'Disaster capitalists' or what ?
This is all how it began for the Neocon crowd as well: looking for a disaster that suits your needs, or otherwise, .... create one !
Winnetou November 2nd, 2008 8:05 am
"Are you all 'Disaster capitalists' or what ?
This is all how it began for the Neocon crowd as well: looking for a disaster that suits your needs, or otherwise, .... create one !"
I certainly have not been looking for one to suit my needs although I have been expecting one for a long time. A country cannot continue forever to send its good jobs overseas for the benefit of corporate profits at the expense of its workers. Eventually you run out people with enough money to buy the products you are trying to sell.
Lobo Gris
"Eventually you run out people with enough money to buy the products you are trying to sell."
Exactly, I wonder what the hell those idiots were thinking.
-----------------------------------
I think, therefore I am dangerous.
ZachP November 2nd, 2008 12:20 pm
"Exactly, I wonder what the hell those idiots were thinking."
The investors and corp CEO's were thinking that they would get rich, many of them did, and to hell with the long term consequences.
Lobo Gris
Attention Nannie! and anyone advocating voting for Nader.
I live in Canada. Last month we had a federal election. Our Parliamentary system has 308 ridings and the conserative weasels got a minority government, by using a somewhat watered down version of Bushes electioneering tactics. In my riding the Liberal candidate had won the previous election by 12,000 votes so I figured I could vote for the New Democratic Party. Guess what? The Conservative candidate won the riding by getting 17 votes more than the Liberal! Now, I wanted my candidate to win, but what I wanted even more was that the Conservative candidate not get a seat in Parliament. The Libs and Cons got 21000+ votes and my NDP got 8,000. I voted for the party I wanted and ended up with the party I really did not want. Do thou likewise?
xyptol November 1st, 2008 5:51 pm
"I voted for the party I wanted and ended up with the party I really did not want. Do thou likewise?"
The reality is that it is never easy being a third party/independent supporter. If it were there would be a lot more of us. The fact is that if you are going to be a third party/independent supporter you have to be ready to accept the fact that you may get what you want the least in the short term to realize your long term goals. That may come in two forms. One of the major parties after losing elections because of your lack of support may start adopting progressive issues in order to win you back. The other is that if they continue to ignore your issues and continue to offer only threats of how bad the other guy is, a third party may actually get a foothold and start winning elections. Regardless of which happens you can expect that in the meantime that the members of the "less" evil party will attempt to heap blame on you for their own failures and the failures of their party. But ask yourself this; will you ever get what you want by buying into the lesser evil philosophy and continuing to vote that way election after election? You won't, because they will continue to use the lesser evilism philosophy on you as long as you are willing to accept it and they can get your vote without having to give anything for it.
Lobo Gris
The other way to explain your third party vote is to ask the questioner: Where do you draw the line on the lesser evil party that continues to drift toward greater and greater evil? Spectacularly the Demok party is drifting right by leaps and bounds THIS year on top of leaps and bounds LAST year, etc, etc! When will it end? You can only stretch so far, right? You do want to stand by your progressive principles, right? If so, you are in grave danger of breaking as the Demok party is lurching deep into the extreme right gutter. On issue after issue, that party has exhibited hostility to the progressive platform. The risk is that you will abandon the progressive platform and let the Demok party draw you kicking and screaming into the extreme right gutter. Fascist police state, war on people, war on earth, war on justice, war on peace. Without end. Where do you draw the line?
Sioux Rose
RT DRURY: You sound like the battle inside my conscience regarding this election. I live in Florida...
.
VOTE NADER 2008 !!!!!!
Vote for PEACE
End the wars
Your NOT going to get it with Big Corp Obama and Big Corp McCain.
Bring the troops home
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
YOu don't understand that some of us can't vote for a pro-war corporatist pro-nuclear pro-"clean coal" anti-gay marriage pro-endless war pro-terrorist (U.S. terrorism), and the list goes on and on. I know my vote for Ralph Nader won't get me the President I want - it's a given that evil will win, murders will happen - I don't have to be complicit. I also vote for Nader in order to join with others in sending a message to Obama & Democrats that we want progressive policies and to stop going rightward.
I would never ask a Nader supporter not to vote for him, and I would have if I hadn't been in a swing state. But like I just asked RichM, what will you do if Obama is elected? Try to drag him to the Progressive left, or ignore the government until 2012?
-----------------------------------
I think, therefore I am dangerous.
When he inevitably behaves exactly as he has told us he will - bipartisanship, dropping more bombs, endless wars, more murders & terrorism (U.S. terrorism, and support for terrorists such as Israeli terrorists), I will point out to his supporters that he does not deserve support and that we need to build a progressive agenda by voting for real true progressive candidates. They won't be able to "win" until enough former democrats leave that party and join us. I'm sure that Obama will drop some crumbs to pacify us; I'll be glad for the crumbs but demand an end to imperialism, corporatism, militarism, and exceptionalism.
ZachP November 1st, 2008 8:27 pm
"and I would have if I hadn't been in a swing state."
And what will you do if you live in a swing state in the next election cycle? And the one after that?
Lobo Gris
That's why I'll be working to either end the electoral college or make it proportional to the popular vote, so it has the same effect. No more swing states!!!
-----------------------------------
I think, therefore I am dangerous.
ZachP November 1st, 2008 11:15 pm
"That's why I'll be working to either end the electoral college or make it proportional to the popular vote, so it has the same effect."
That will take a Constitutional amendment which I won't even begin to describe the difficulty in getting, especially since the two major parties like things just the way they are.
Lobo Gris
Sure, it also took a Constitutional amendment to give women the right to vote, and God knows that even today there are men that don't think women should have equal rights, never mind 80 years ago. Is that a reason not to try?
-----------------------------------
I think, therefore I am dangerous.
ZachP November 1st, 2008 11:46 pm
"Sure, it also took a Constitutional amendment to give women the right to vote, and God knows that even today there are men that don't think women should have equal rights, never mind 80 years ago. Is that a reason not to try?"
I didn't say that you shouldn't try, I give you the realistic view that it will be next to impossible to achieve, especially in the current climate. During the time period you describe there were massive uprisings and marches by women to achieve the vote. I don't see anything similar happening over a divided issue such as eliminating the electoral college, especially again since most if not all of our elected representatives support it.
That still doesn't answer the question though of what you will do with your vote if you live in a swing state in the next election cycle or the one after that? What if as I asked another poster, the Republicans run more "compassionate conservatives" and or neocons in the next few election cycles and they are close? You don't have to answer me but it is a question that you should ask yourself.
Lobo Gris
It will depend on who is running. I'm not into party loyalty stuff.
-----------------------------------
I think, therefore I am dangerous.
.
‘I would rather vote for what I want ... and not get it,
than vote for what I don’t want ... and get it.’
Eugene Debs
.
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008 ... and send a message to WHOM, exactly? And to what end? Talk about futile gestures, in an election year in which we white liberals can put our vote where our convictions are and pull the lever for a black man. Yes, he may disappoint, but his victory will end forever the belief that the Presidency is for Whites Only!
Adele:
.
Nader says...
"Wake up Americans! Cut the crap and take over."
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008…
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
Tell me, Adele, what would you do if the exact same 2 candidates were running -- with the same personalities & same positions, but McCain was the one who was black?
You talk about "...an election year in which we white liberals can put our vote where our convictions are." Are your convictions with the Wall St bailout, the War on Terror, an escalated war in Afghanistan/Pakistan, expanding the military by almost 100,000 troops, the FISA amendment, the death penalty, nuclear energy & off-shore drilling, & allowing all the Bush criminals to walk away scot-free? Is that what you mean by "we white liberals"?
RichM, if Obama is elected, will you simply ignore his administration, and wait until 2012 to make your voice heard again? Or will you do everything you can to pull him and the rest of the Democrats to our side? I plan on being more active AFTER the election than I am right now.
-----------------------------------
I think, therefore I am dangerous.
To the people who voted for Nader and McKinney, I respect your vote. I was tempted many times to vote third party, but the stakes are just much too high. I'm not ashamed to vote for Obama. At least America will have a President with a brain. I know that's not popular among the Sarah Palin know nothing crowd, but I do respect intelligence. The Sarah Palin/GW Bush lovers mock intelligence. They have a Khmer Rouge mentality. You all can can hate on me for voting for Obama. Ironic, because I respect progressives decision to vote for Obama, Nader or McKinney. I don't mock your vote. Please don't mock mine. BTW don't waste your time hating on me, because I will not read your posts.
winning ticket - I could have written your post myself because I was also very tempted to vote for Nader, but I'm not ashamed to have voted for Obama for the same reasons as yours. Having someone with a brain in the White House would be fantastic.
When the smoke has cleared after 11/04, I think we should all get to work, regardless of the outcome, to help the 3rd party of our choice continue in the fight to take their rightful places in our country's political lineup.
wilmoor November 1st, 2008 4:33 pm
"When the smoke has cleared after 11/04, I think we should all get to work, regardless of the outcome, to help the 3rd party of our choice continue in the fight to take their rightful places in our country's political lineup."
And what will you do when the Republicans run more "compassionate conservatives" and neocons for election in 2012? Won't the cost for you be too high to support any third party candidates then too?
Lobo Gris
More importantly, what will you do when you realize that Obama is actually a Conservative, who would fit right in to the Republican party?? Do you care at all about the people he will kill? Is U.S. terrorism o.k. with you?? You'll get all that and more if Obama is elected on Tuesday (if the election isn't stolen yet again).
"Democracy isn't a subversive activity."
no... at least not as our founders envisioned... but our Corpocracy is completely subversive... and all within "The Party, Inc." play a active role in promoting and maintaining it. Every time they vote to enable the system that disenfranchises them, they do immeasurable harm themselves, and to the democracy that once defined this country... and *that* is truly subversive.
And they harm themselves when they vote for these policies! And they "feel good" about it! It's insane!
Yeah, their insane.
But they still have the potential to "snap back into reality".
Our work now is to get this to happen with as little trauma as possible.
Think of us -those that we could call "awake or "aware"- not as a seperate and scattered political faction, but as the whole spectrum of localized adaptatory mutations that are now beginning to spread.
Somehow, through all the Noise and Control prevelant in the TELECulture, many, many people are never-the-less still Awake and Aware enough to think clearly.
This is an amazing thing!
Don't let us lose this amazing adaptation now, when it matters most.
Let's see THROUGH all the B.S. and attempts at manipulation.
The Pillars in the Halls of Power are SHAKING!
Make no mistake about this.
Obama is full of B.S., but what that B.S. says is evidence of the dangerous position that anti-democratic forces are now in.
The Age of Credit as fuel for Capitalism is ending.
Unsless the clever boys in the Ownership Class can come up with some other way to keep the suckers slaving away things are going to get quite interesting.
Don't Panic,
-matti.
The articles's criticisms of the Republicans are all true -- but that hardly makes voting for the two-faced Democrats a virtuous exercise in "democracy."
The election has nothing to do with democracy. Both parties are pro-war and defend the interests of the financial oligarchy. Both parties have been fully complicit in the wars, the torture, the government eavesdropping on Americans, PATRIOT Act, FISA bill, & last month's bailout of Wall Street -- to name only the leading offenses. It's true that the Republicans played the leading role in most (but not all) of these outrages. But they could never have pulled it off, without the constant support & protection from the Democrats.
In Obama's entire 18 month campaign, he barely even mentioned the name "George W Bush." Think about what that means. Here you have an administration committing war crimes & crimes against the Constitution on a near daily-basis, and the "opposition" leader doesn't find any of it worth mentioning. The bailout last month was the greatest stick-up in history -- and the Democratic Party not only failed to oppose it, but actually raced to get it passed, even less hesitant about enabling The Great Heist than the Republicans.
Obama may well retain several of Bush's cabinet members, including Gates at Defense, & perhaps even Paulson at Treasury. Even if he replaces Paulson with another Wall Streeter, the policies will be basically the same, & are already largely determined, as consequences of the massive bailout.
"the Democratic Party not only failed to oppose it, but actually raced to get it passed, even less hesitant about enabling The Great Heist than the Republicans"
This is a good illustration of what voters are up against. Voters are told they are getting something better in the Demok party but now voters see from the Demoks leading the bailout that some kind of hidden torch has been passed. The torch has been passed to the Demoks by the elites who run the show from behind the scenes. The only way for the people to take power from the elites is to deprive BOTH elite parties of support, so we vote third party.
I would actually seperate the solution from the Parties entirely and from "voting" to some extent as well.
We need a new Constitution to reflect our new constitution.
This should be the focus now -fixing the broken STRUCTURES of our Society -Governmental, Economic, Transport, Work, Food, etc.
Enter stage left: the same 50 people telling us all how bad Obama is.
Prior to this is the same old fallacious argument 50 times. Too bad that your oversimplification, "how bad Obama is," reveals that you still haven't listened to the debunking.
The Republicans have shown that they're ONLY interested in power and profit for their buddies, and the public, the workers, the environment, and the rest of the world be damned. I don't see that with Obama, whatever his other faults. And for crying out loud, he's a politician working in a broken and corrupt system. Politics is messy, it doesn't adhere to our ideals.
You've got it partly right here.
"The Republicans have shown that they're ONLY interested in power and profit ..."
To that I say "bingo." After that we diverge. I see no virtue in active collaboration with them, whereas you are willing to rationalize it.
Politics will never adhere to our ideals when we willingly jettison those ideals.
Yes, I've listened, many times. I still believe Obama is very likely to use his bully pulpit to point the country in a much better direction. There are a lot of supposedly "liberal" senators and representatives who have voted for some of the worst legislation that has come down the pike in the last few years, or have sat idly by and let it happen. Unfortunately, the president has a very large (too large) presence in American politics now. It remains to be seen how Obama would use his influence. Don't tell me what he "will" do. You don't know. If he turns out to be a bust you can say "I told you so" and I'll respond accordingly.
Don't tell me what he "will" do.
Exactly... What is his RECORD?? What has he DONE??
Those are the questions to ask.
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008…
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
There is such a thing as a reasonable hypothesis. I find a voting record and announced policy much more persuasive than wishful thinking.
Note, by the way, that none of my responses here involve "hating Obama." Odd, that.
The question isn't whether "the same 50 people" say that Obama is "bad." It's whether the policies he supports are in fact "bad" or not.
If you think Obama's policies are "good," let's hear you make the case. All you have to do is explain why you think it's "good" to escalate the war in Afghanistan, to increase the size of the military, to continue the War on Terror, to continue with the Wall Street bailout, to continue with the security provisions enacted by the FISA amendment in July, to deny the US real single-payer health insurance, & to allow all the Bush criminals to escape accountability for their crimes.
If you can explain why that stuff is "good," speak right up. Otherwise, you have nothing to say.
I've never been a huge Obama supporter. I originally liked Richardson, then Kucinich. I don't think the stuff you mentioned is good, and I have written to the Obama campaign to voice my disapproval, especially regarding the fallacy that capturing bin Laden (or any other terrorist) will do any good at this point, especially using the military anywhere in the middle east.
On the other hand, we are currently in a headlong rush into a fascist dictatorship, and I don't believe Obama will continue that trend, in fact I believe he will reverse it. I also believe he will enable meetings and a softening of positions regarding our "enemies" which could reverse a lot of negative trends in the world.
I realize you've hardened your position against Obama, but I have not. Like Zach, I don't agree with or approve of many of Obama's stated positions, but I believe he can open the door toward vast improvements and away from fascism.
hamster November 1st, 2008 4:57 pm
"On the other hand, we are currently in a headlong rush into a fascist dictatorship, and I don't believe Obama will continue that trend, in fact I believe he will reverse it."
If that is the case then why would he have voted for the FISA act which he did after proclaiming that he wouldn't and why did he vote for the Patriot act?
Lobo Gris
Would you prefer the GOP to rip him as 'soft on terrorists' or a terrorist sympathizer instead? Didn't they successfully paint Kerry that way?
-----------------------------------
I think, therefore I am dangerous.
Obama IS a terrorist! Same with Bush, McCain, and almost all of our elected officials. AND the people who vote for them. If other countries did to the U.S. what we do to other countries, we would call them correctly: terrorists! Why the double standard?
ZachP November 1st, 2008 8:22 pm
"Would you prefer the GOP to rip him as 'soft on terrorists' or a terrorist sympathizer instead? Didn't they successfully paint Kerry that way?"
That only works if the voting public buys into the Rovian tactics which they have shown repeatedly that they are not doing this election cycle. I would add also that Kerry never fought back, something that Obama has shown a willingness to do. The public has been looking for change, change they are not getting from either of the duopoly candidates.
I'm with Michael Moore on this (not just because I dressed as him for Halloween, it was a hit :-). Since most politicians are lying out of their asses while campaigning, who's to say Obama will continue neocon policies? He's intelligent enough to know they'll never work, and make our country far worse off. As I said once before, remember that he has to appeal to enough of the ignorant jackasses that gave Bush a majority of the popular vote in 2004 to win. Most of the country has no idea what the Progressive movement represents (if they did they'd all be Progressives!), so if Obama were to campaign that way they'd think he was nuts, and the MSM would rip him 24/7. However, if once he gets into office and starts a Progressive agenda, after some time more and more people would realize how much better it is for them. I don't think Obama's stated policies are good, but I do think *he* is good. And I am very much looking forward to Nader's campaign of organizing Progressives in Congressional districts nationwide to drag the Democrats, kicking and screaming if need be, to our agenda, like the religious fundies did to the Republicans (minus the hate).
-----------------------------------
I think, therefore I am dangerous.
ZachP November 1st, 2008 4:27 pm
"I don't think Obama's stated policies are good, but I do think *he* is good."
Obama could be the best person in the world but if his policies are bad........that is what will affect millions of others.
Lobo Gris
He can always adopt better policies once elected.
-----------------------------------
I think, therefore I am dangerous.
ZachP November 1st, 2008 10:43 pm
"He can always adopt better policies once elected."
That is based on wishful thinking rather than his voting record and his stated stands on the issues which show exactly the opposite of what you are wishing for. What are you going to do when you try to get him to adopt better policies after he is elected and he tells you.... I told you where I stood, you saw my voting record, and you voted for me and my policies? Not in those words of course, he will be much more circumspect and diplomatic about it.
Lobo Gris
It may be based on wishful thinking, but my original question to someone else was what will you do if Obama is elected? Try to make him advance our agenda, or just ignore him and wait 4 years to try again?
-----------------------------------
I think, therefore I am dangerous.
ZachP November 1st, 2008 11:45 pm
"It may be based on wishful thinking, but my original question to someone else was what will you do if Obama is elected? Try to make him advance our agenda, or just ignore him and wait 4 years to try again?"
The fact is that Obama will probably be elected next tues. If you're asking if I will engage in letter writing campaigns or marches that have already proven ineffective the answer is no. I will try to spend my time more productively in trying to convince others that becoming a third party member and voting for third party/independent candidates is in fact the more effective way to go.
See my post to xyptol November 1st, 2008 5:51 pm
Lobo Gris
Right. The people have the ability to install their own champion in the oval orifice. An outsider such as Nader or McKinney will do simply great even when the Congress refuses to cooperate. For example the Justice Dept. will throw hundreds of war criminals in jail. The State Dept. will re-open a diplomatic network worldwide. The War Dept. will gather up its marbles and go home. Can you imagine the reaction of the world? It will be a four year party in the streets across the entire planet. Everyone will be singing ding dong the duopoly is dead. Vote for the big change, people, third party.
I am very sad & angry at the excuses I hear for voting for the two major parties. The core beliefs are enough the same to say NO to both parties. Please, stop calling what we have "democracy"! We don't have a level playing field, a multiparty system, nor do we have an ability for those without money to get very far within our political system. Please vote against the two party system, for Nader, for McKinney, for anyone other than a "D" or "R".
I agree. More than ever, Americans should take a look at the pseudo-choice they are offered between the two corporate-approved candidates and practice The Audacity of Nope.
We cannot rely on choices or pseudo-choices we are "offered". Who exactly will "offer" us choices? It is way too passive an approach. So after saying nope, what then? The only way we will have the choices we need is to create them ourselves. They ain't there and they will never be there if we wait for them to be offered up on a platter.
Joe
." The other represents fear and greed, and his campaign reflects the lower-order impulses that have guided his party and given it success."
Proof that conservatives are a mix of cowardly, reactionary, violent, superstitious, antisocial, criminal, power and warmongering greedheads.
If I understand Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America we no longer have
a 'Democracy' in America.
Goldwater, Raegan and Bush's Greed is Good and Fie on Government is not democratic.
Democracy requires a sufficient number of democrats to make it work but far too many
American citizens have been lured by the Pied Piper of the Dark Side and far too many
American citizens have been divided by the Great Uniter to allow a democracy to survive.
Again, this falls into the old and mindless mindset "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
This writer doesn't name one single reason to actually vote for Obama. Not one policy. And what the heck. Spread the wealth? It is just a matter of going back to Clinton's tax policies. Obama himself *says* this!
Reconstituted Bill Clinton, and everyone is thrilled. Well, Bill was a popular president. Interesting that he had been called 'America's first black president'. Maybe it was a bit prophetic?
Maya Angalou has repeatedly pointed out that she labeled Clinton the "first black president" for the way he was demonized by the right-wing haters (the way they had treated blacks for decades).
Clinton did very little FOR blacks, or anyone else.