Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Sounds of Voting -- and Check Writing
Our Manhattan offices are in a building that also houses the New York City Board of Elections. So this is the season when we hear above our heads the sounds of heavy objects rolling across the floor into freight elevators. The moving men have arrived -- and what they're transporting are voting machines being carted off to polling places.
It's reassuring, the sound of those big metal boxes being rolled out so we can cast our votes, but all too often in our fair city (as no doubt where you live, too) we are confronted by an end run on the part of a political elite, many of whom don't really trust what comes out of the ballot box on Election Day unless they've fixed what goes in.
For some weeks now we've watched our mayor, Mike Bloomberg, maneuver to undermine the will of the people. Once upon a time the mayor supported the rule that city officials can only serve two terms. But then someone pointed out term limits applied to him, too, and that he couldn't run for a third term. So he set out to change the rules. But instead of asking the people to vote on it in a public referendum, the mayor decided he couldn't risk his ambition on a fickle public.
So he turned first to his fellow moguls who own the city's major newspapers -- Murdoch, of the New York Post and The Wall Street Journal; Zuckerman of the Daily News, and Sulzberger of The New York Times. Then, according to the Times, with his considerable philanthropic clout -- before the financial meltdown, his worth was some $20 billion dollars -- the mayor leaned for support on the community and arts groups that depend on his charitable largesse.
Then he dodged the public referendum process by jawboning and cajoling the city council whose members, lo and behold, would also enjoy a chance at a third term just by giving the mayor what he wants.
By just about all accounts Mayor Bloomberg has been a fine mayor, and there are good people arguing that Gotham City needs his unique experience during a financial crisis that not even Batman or Spiderman can untangle. But New York said no to Rudy Giuliani when he tried to pull the third term hat trick in the aftermath of 9/11, and under other circumstances it's likely Bloomberg, too, would have been told, "No, thank you. We prefer due process."
The mayor's ploy has the odor about it of Silvio Berlusconi, Italy's perennial plutocrat. But even Silvio's forebears, those Roman emperors who similarly ruled by decree, had a minion standing behind them whose sole job was to whisper, "Remember, Caesar, thou art mortal."
We tell ourselves that no one is above the law, but that seems hard for some politicians to grasp. So now we also have the spectacle of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, 84 years old, who likes to wear a tie emblazoned with the visage of that popular anti-hero, the Incredible Hulk. Convicted this week on seven counts of lying on financial disclosure forms, Stevens declared, "It's not over yet." Then off he headed back to Alaska where the state's Republican Party said voters shouldn't be denied the services of one of the country's most successful pork merchants just because he's a convicted felon.
That's the kind of argument we've always heard in Washington, and you have to wonder if Barack Obama or John McCain really think they can deliver on their promises to change that culture. Special interests are entrenched and incorrigible, and they're spending the money to keep it that way.
This year's will be the most expensive federal elections in history -- the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics estimates that the presidential and congressional candidates will spend more than $5.3 billion. Among incumbents in the House of Representatives, 79 percent of their campaign funds come from beyond their home district -- of the top 20 zip codes making those contributions, 15 are in Washington, DC, and the surrounding Maryland and Virginia suburbs -- home base for lobbyists and lawyers, corporate PAC's, unions and other special interests whose money buys access you don't have as a citizen.
Nearly two and a half billion dollars are being spent for the presidency, twice what was spent four years ago and triple the amount in 2000, The Obama campaign has boasted how it's the average citizens who have been funding him -- small contributions made over the Internet and such. But Senator Obama has no shortage of high rollers -- he's received more than $37 million from lawyers and lobbyists, $21.6 million from the communications and electronics industries, $16 million from health care interests.
While fewer than 2,600 contributors to John McCain list their occupation as "chief executive," nearly 6,000 of Obama's contributors are CEO's. If you don't think any of these donors will be hoping for at least a little something in return, we've got a Bridge to Nowhere we'd like to sell you.
How can there be change when so much money is coming from the usual big business suspects? Hedging their bets, many of them are giving more money to Democrats this year than Republicans -- Democratic congressional candidates are receiving more from corporate political action committees than Republicans, the first time that's happened since 1994. The drug company lobbyist PhRMA -- the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America -- is prescribing more than $13 million worth of advertising for 28 members of Congress, 25 of whom are Democrats.
Democrats also hold a slight edge in money coming from the finance sector. Finance, insurance and the real estate industries -- combined, they're the biggest players of all in this election cycle, contributing more than $373 million to Democrats and Republicans. That's on top of the $288 million they've spent so far this year on lobbying. Is it any wonder that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson is so freely donating banks and financial institutions the $700 billion financial bailout with so few conditions? As Time magazine reported, "Uncle Sam has a new name on Wall Street -- Sugar Daddy."
So can change happen in Washington when the usual suspects are piling up money like sandbags to protect against the public's clamor for a better deal? We're about to find out.

29 Comments so far
Show AllYes change can happen. Circumstances so dire as to threaten everyone will emerge and force change upon the most well heeled and reluctant. It's change or die time.
More importantly, both major parties are in agreement on core beliefs; this is why they do not deserve our votes, regardless of the crumbs the "D" might throw at us to pacify us a bit. One of the hundreds of reasons I won't vote for Obama (or McCain) is that $600 million of buying your vote. A level playing field is an ethical issue for all of us.
Who would you have voted for if you weren't going to vote for Nader or McKinney? I mean there really are just two choices. Why would you waste your vote on a 3rd party candidate that has no chance?
Yes, I guess you're correct. There are only 2 choices: Nader or McKinney, and I've already voted for Nader/Gonzalez.
Why are you going to "waste your vote" on the Corporate candidates Obama/Biden?
What Do They Have to Do to Lose Your Vote?
The Trail of Broken Promises
By MATT GONZALEZ
http://www.counterpunch.org/gonzalez10292008.html
Vote independent or boycott the elections
By Reza Fiyouzat
Online Journal Contributing Writer
How long shall we allow the system to kick us in the head, take our money, insult us after taking our money, and still expect us to participate in its frauds? With every passing year, the differences between the two ruling political parties in the U.S. diminish further, and their outlook, conduct and even advertising campaigns merge so much so that their members can be mistaken one for the other.
By now it must be clear that the ‘two-party’ system is not only no such thing, it is corrupt to the bone.
It should be instructive to recount some major points of Obama’s record, but since much of that has been done by far more qualified people, it should suffice to point to what’s presented by Matt Gonzalez, in his piece, What Do They Have to Do to Lose Your Vote? (http://www.counterpunch.org/gonzalez10292008.html), in which we find all that is needed to persuade any whose illusions regarding Obama are still unshaken. If, after reading that, you still vote for Obama, then you deserve everything Obama throws at you once in office, and it is you who have no right to complain.
Article continued at this link:
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3943.shtml
Great links Sam, thanks...
What say you America ?????
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008…
.
"So can change happen in Washington when the usual suspects are piling up money like sandbags to protect against the public's clamor for a better deal? We're about to find out."
No, very little change can happen in Washington - it has to happen everywhere else.
If we can't change ourselves and change Washington from the outside in, then forget about it, it's all over.
We have no choice - WE must change things. It's not as easy as voting for first party him or second party him or 3rd party her or 4th party him - WE have to do it. No choice.
"It is not true that it's one damn thing after another - it's one damn thing over and over." Edna St. Vincent Millay
Oprah's Vote Gets Recorded Incorrectly
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6603#more-6603
[I'm giving the above link with reservation. Brad Friedman does a good job on what he focuses on (this election stuff) but unfortunately his head is as big as the Los Angeles Basin, and the "moderator" (who goes by the name Agent99 and who's on this big power trip) on his blog his extremely obnoxious and protects the 4-5 "regulars" on there who worship Brad and the faux Dems in congress. They remind me of a little "cult." I don't go on there too often because of that.]
Bill Moyers, you have got to be as big of a hypocrite as has ever strolled down the pike! Three days before the election and after many American citizens have already cast their ballots via early voting or absentee ballots you write this article warning us of the evils of corporate funding and its corresponding influence in our national elections. As a reporter what have you been doing for over the past one year plus that the Presidential elections have been in progress? Ralph Nader is still trying to reach only the four million dollar mark in donations by Election Day, virtually ALL of it from small contributors. Mr. Nader’s campaign is built on ending the corporate control of our democracy. I, along with many others, have personally e-mailed you urging you to interview candidate Nader, but you ignored our requests. For two years you, Terri Gross, and most others at National Public Radio have conspired to shut candidates such as Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, Bob Barr, Ron Paul, Cynthia McKinney and Charles Baldwin from virtually ANY coverage of their campaigns. During the primary campaigning I heard weekly, if not daily, reports on NPR about the AMOUNTS of money Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were raising, but nary a word on where they stood on campaign financing reform. You, the national news media and NPR were in a rush to give us a woman candidate vs. a Black candidate and the issues and the good of the country be damned. And, now three days before the election you, just like that habitual liar Collin Powell, are trying to do last minute damage control on your reputation by ringing you hands in the liberal media about corporate control of American elections. It may be a little late to save the country, but probably just in time for you to get a seat in a lifeboat. To answer your question: “So can change happen in Washington when the usual suspects are piling up money like sandbags to protect against the public’s clamor for a better deal?” my answer is that it could if the country had reporters with guts enough to act like they were members of a free press.
.Diatribes are fun for the whole family, accuracy is better still....
Your invective towards Mr. Moyers and NPR is misplaced. In fact I have heard McKinney, Barr, Paul, Kucinich and Nader interviewed on NPR while not a word from the so-called mass media. I happen to spend my entire working day listening to that station and perhaps you might go to their website ( npr.org) and note the archival evidence that weakens your spiel.
More to the point, actually, is the question of why spend billions for a job that pays $400,000/yr? Of course that is a rhetoricla question...
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Bill Moyers is NOT a 'hypocrite'...I believe he has even interviewed Nader on his show this year & other progressive voices over the years...
If the Dems do a 'sweep' this election & Obama/Congress do not pass meaningful CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM(how about public funded elections!)then they will deserve in 2010 to get booted out the door..(Of course a Roberts/Scalia Supreme Court could rule it(big money) 'free speech'/ unconstitutional!)
"If the Dems do a 'sweep' this election & Obama/Congress do not pass meaningful CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM(how about public funded elections!)then they will deserve in 2010 to get booted out the door.."
They ALREADY deserve to get booted out the door. I don't know how much more time people are willing to give them. This article comes to mind again:
What Do They Have to Do to Lose Your Vote?
The Trail of Broken Promises
By MATT GONZALEZ
http://www.counterpunch.org/gonzalez10292008.html
The faux Dems deserve NOTHING in this "election." They have been complete failures for We The People since 2000. But 2010 will come and the usual people who continue to vote for and support the faux Dems will once again make excuses and apologies for them (and use the FEAR card and the so-called "lesser of two evils" nonsense) and continue to support and vote for these scum in 2010....and beyond, just because they have that big D behind their name.
Whomever wins, the Oligarchy retains control. We'll be lucky if the current dictator and his pet monkey doesn't declare war against Syria and Iran, followed by martial law. Any Black Op will suffice.
Remember the Bush Doctrine. Any sovereign nation that resists American aggression is automatically a criminal regime and subject to attack, sanctions, invasion and occupation. Every patriot that resists is a terrorist. Anyone we kill with a rocket attack from a Predator Drone is a terrorist regardless of age or sex. It is really simple.
If things get bad enough for the American People to rise up, we can expect the same treatment. After all, the current government treats the American People as an occupied nation, with little or no voice in their own affairs and concerns, all closely monitored by HS and its various minions. It is just a short step to a total lockdown.
Uh huh. I've said this before, but frankly I'll be surprised if the current White House occupants leave in January. I don't think they have any intention of going anywhere. And even if they do physically leave, they will still be there...just like Karl Rove is still there.
As I see it, these neocon/Bush people did not steal 2 presidential "elections" to willingly and graciously turn their Dictatorship over to someone else, unless the new person has adamantly agreed to continue the Bush/PNAC agenda.
Walk on Water Obama may be allowed to "win" it, (or in other words, he will be selected by the vote-flipping easily-hackable electronic voting machines/central tabulator) if he has thoroughly convinced the neocons/Bush regime that he will continue the status quo. His VOTING RECORD is that of a Bush-accomplice and most recently he voted for FISA and actively worked for and voted for Bush's $850 BILLION Wall Street bailout...so they are the latest examples of his continued Bush-enabling to convince the neocons of the continuation of the Bush status quo.
I've thought for some time that it is a given that McCain will be selected since he does officially have the R behind his name, when Obama is a neocon Repug who charades as a faux Dem.
In my opinion, the Dems were allowed to have the majority in congress in 2006 because the neocons/Repugs/Bush regime knew that NOTHING was going to change. And it hasn't, for the positive that is.
This "election" could be the same situation. Let Obama have it because the neocons are convinced that the status quo will continue with Obama. But if I had to bet on it, I'd bet on the guy with the official R behind his name being selected by the neocons who control the vote-flipping, easily-hackable, riggable, Repug-owned electronic voting machines...which most people don't want to talk about.
"It is not the people who elect their representatives, it is the people who count the votes who elect them." Joseph Stalin
"We can not allow the people of Chile to choose their leader." Henry Kissinger to Richard Nixon after Salvador Allende´s victory in Chile. (CIA Black Op followed and Pinochet became Chile´s Dictator)
"The Power Elite" took us to Viet Nam and were responsible for the deaths of over 3 million Vietnamese and over 58,000 American Soldiers. Never mind the hundreds of thousands of Americans and Vietnamese who have died from cancers contracted through contact with "Agent Orange" and "Agent Pink".
"The Power Elite" chose to put George W. Bush in as President because he had agreed to invade Iraq and Afghanistan as part of "Neo-Conservative Pax Americana".
"The Power Elite" knew of the impending 9/11 attacks and chose to do nothing to prevent them.
"The Power Elite" chose to "Invade" Iraq and are responsible for the deaths of over 1.2 million Iraqis and over 4,000 American soldiers and 4 million Iraqis living in refugee camps.
Life has no meaning to the "Power Elite" only POWER and MONEY.
"The Power Elite" chose Sarah Palin to be the Vice Presidential Candidate. Why?
"
I have to agree. I can't imagine these Fascists just passing the baton to a Dem who promises to change the way things are run. And this is interesting too. Below is a link to an article in The Army Times.
Well, if you recall, when the Bu$h administration passed the "Military Commissions Act" in Oct of `06 there was a "trailer" attached (as is often done when passing bills) that suspended "Posse Comitatus".
The "Posse Comitatus Act" was designed to substantially limit the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement.
Could it be that there's something brewing? Some dastardly deed?
The "Rigging" of another election?
Or, dare I suggest the "A" word of a very popular Democrat?
This is very ominous indeed.
A little Marshall Law anyone? Check this out:
Beginning in October, the Army plans to station an active unit inside the United States for the first time to serve as an on-call federal response in times of emergency. The 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent thirty-five of the last sixty months in Iraq, but now the unit is training for domestic operations. The unit will soon be under the day-to-day control of US Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command. The Army Times reports this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to Northern Command. The paper says the Army unit may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control. The soldiers are learning to use so-called nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals and crowds.
Here the link to the actual article: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/
Cosmicharlie,
Yeah, read this before....First the October surprise, then....will there be a November surprise? One can only speculate what "might" be in the offing. I read on another "fringe" site that the government is stockpiling plastic coffins in warehouses....for what? One thought is the avian flu pandemic coming (to cull out the old and infirm - a relief to the pressure on Social Security and the health care system).
I'm hoping that we're being just a bit paranoid, but who could blame us? I do feel manipulated by my government...through TV and misinformation that creates this low grade continual fear, as a control device.
I'd like to be wrong on this, but obviously many others are sharing these thoughts.
Sioux Rose
SAM: I've read your points, and those of Samson & Rich M and it all makes so much sense about the one party with "good cop, bad cop" routine. The only snag is why they spend how many billion on this election debacle? Is it that important to entertain the public with an expensive circus? Granted, the policy differences are minimal between "the candidates" allowed, or pre-selected... and yet the Rovian tactics, the amount of legalized bribes (lobbyists) make one wonder if there are not differences, that such an elaborate SHOW is being produced at such enormous cost if it's just ONE team???
"...that such an elaborate SHOW is being produced at such enormous cost if it's just ONE team???"
Yes, that's really what it is. Expensive theatre and show to try to give the illusion of two "teams" to the masses, at an outrageous cost. All that money could have gone to something worthwhile, such as helping people.
And because most people are programmed/indoctrinated at an early age with the politics of one team versus the other (either D or R), the masses continue to buy the illusion---that these D/R politicians and corporate media feed them---because it's in their programming. Which is why very few people support the so-called "third party" candidates, even after what we have seen from the Republicrats since 2000. Most Dem voters will continue to support and vote for the faux Dem politicians regardless of what they have done for Bush/Cheney/Rove et al since 2000. And then some people wonder why nothing changes for the positive.
He used enough of of the few positive Democratic traits to color his rhetoric; but he also knew that his role was that of imperial manager, and that in the public mind no mule since JFK had so seamlessly blended high purpose with realpolitik, social grace with murderous intent. LBJ, Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis couldn't achieve this critical balance. Bill Clinton could, and more or less did.
This is about Clinton, but it's true of Obama as well. MURDEROUS INTENT, exactly. This is the biggest of the many reasons I am angry at Obama supporters.
So I will vote with 1 of 20 other americans for REAL PROGRESSIVES. While I hoped for 1 of 10, too many allowed emotions to trump rational thought. It's all so sad.
Voter rule changes are so much needed in America. In Canada the Liberal GOV a few years ago changed the rules and that limits how much a person can give to a candidate. It was pushed through and voted on over a few days thus stopping American style lobbyist controlled elections.
Well this is like dragging out the water hoses after the house has just about burnt down to the ground. McCain chose Phil Gramm to be the Vice Chairman of his campaign. Phil Gramm wrote the CFMA (Commodities Futures Modernization ACT) which PROHIBITED any regulation of credit default swaps. Phil Gramm's deregulation helped set the stage for an explosion of banks slicing up subprime mortgages, bundling them with other mortgage slices to hide the credit risks, and selling mortgage stew to other investment firms. Thus the mess that made the conditions ripe for approval of $700 billion bailout for the bankers/lenders. In the mean time real flesh and blood people have been kicked out of their homes in real communities. But it seems nobody wants to talk local happenings, local organizing, that hard grunge work, inch by inch, step by step that is needed to build critical mass in order to build a national movement. Siting this foreclosure debacle is only one issue. How about health issues such as marginalizing many neighborhoods so the the children are forced to live with severe asthma and cancers as freeways encroach upon their neighborhoods. How about lack of anything in local neighborhoods but liquor stores to buy groceries. These are just a few issues that "progressives" might be rolling up their sleeves and actually working for a better world.
Sioux Rose
LOST: Good points, and by the way, the $700 billion is a bandaid relative to the trilions traded on in the form of the invisible "thing" that's really a NO-thing known as a "derivative." It's a casino-style bet on a loan's repayment chances... a sane recovery would have seen an across-the-board shift in the terms of mortgages if those banks were to get a penny. Then, working with homeowners to stay in said homes, even if as another CD person recommended, they take a 40 year mortgage, communities and their home values would have been salvaged. Instead, all this worthless paper shifting hands, and it does not BEGIN to cover what was traded upon, the infinite sum of nothingness...
Boy oh boy, the Obama bots are in for a RUDE awakening when Obama takes office on 1/20/2009. Obama's a JFK alright. JFK made the biggest mistake giving the corporate elite a SUPERHUGE tax break lying about it wiping out the deficits. No wonder Ronnie Raygun and Bush Jr. were able to capitalize on it. And Obama has already said that he'll postpone rescinding Bush's tax cuts on the uber-wealthy for at least a year, probably longer if he wants a second term. Between Mccain and Obama, there's no difference ! I guess you Obama bots out there will have to find this out the hard way and eat your own panties off ! And while at it, apologize to us 3rd party supporters.
Apologize to us 3rd party supporters? Never would they do that.
No, what will happen most likely is that if their lord and saviour Obama is selected by the vote-flipping and easily-hackable electronic voting machines/central tabulator, the Obama bots will (as usual) start making excuses and apologies for Mr Walk on Water just like they did after the 2006 "election." He might throw a slight bit of "window dressing" stuff at us to pacify (like the faux Dems' minimum wage increase after 2006) while he actively works for the continuation of the Bush regime and imperalism. You probably remember the entire bank of excuses and apologies the Dem bots were making for their precious faux Dems. The #1 excuse: You have to give them tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiime." (With emphasis on the word "time.")
So the Obama bots will say, "you have to give him tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiime." Then at some point, when the pathetic damn fools finally realize they have been fooled yet again, they will start chanting, "well, we can vote him out in 2012." They'll also talk about voting out their faux Dems and replacing them with---what will turn out to be---other faux Dems.
The cycle continues because the Obama/Dem bots operate entirely on emotion (this time around it's the "hope and change" public relations slogan). They refuse to learn because that big D is programmed in them prevents them from looking at this shit rationally.
One would think an intelligent person's #1 criteria for selecting and rallying behind a candidate would be the candidate's VOTING RECORD. But most Obama bots could care less about their lord and saviour's Bush-accomplice VOTING RECORD.
Oh well.
.
If a President is chosen because of his RACE or RELIGION that is WRONG.
Record is the choice. It speaks the loudest.
What say you America ?????
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008… You’ll be glad you did and so will I…
.
I have found over and over again that Obama's volunteers don't even know his voting record. They squirm when I start talking about it. They change the subject to "hope" and "change", and he's black and usually they switch the subject to how scary McCain is (this is true; it doesn't make Obama any less scary, though). How do we progressives get them past emotional thinking and towards rational thinking?? Since there is nothing he could do to lose their vote, how do organize ourselves better?
My experience is the exact same as yours. Ugh.
"How do we progressives get them past emotional thinking and towards rational thinking??"
We don't and we won't. The Dem kool-aid drinkers (Obama bots) are like talking to a brick wall. It doesn't matter what we tell them, from my experience. As you say, they go off on their usual programmed "hope and change" manure. Yeah, that's it. To me, they are no different than dealing with fundamentalist "christians." It doesn't matter what you tell them, they "believe" in their Obama regardless. And they have "hope" (just like the "christian" nuts have "faith"). It's the same shit...unfortunately.
I had a round with one of them (Obama bots) today on another site. I presented Obama's RECORD which meant nothing to this person. They then proceeded to smear Nader. I then presented Nader's positions. Then they backed off a bit and then went immediately into their "hope" channeling for Obama. I thought, well here we go again with that hope drivel. I had also given them that recent article by Matt Gonzalez (What Do They Have to Do to Lose Your Vote? The Trail of Broken Promises
http://www.counterpunch.org/gonzalez10292008.html), but that didn't make a dent in them either. So I realized I was wasting my time and ended it.
"Since there is nothing he could do to lose their vote, how do organize ourselves better?"
I really don't think it would matter how well we were organized to tell you the truth. If people don't want to believe something or see something, they won't, no matter how well organized somebody else is. The facts mean nothing to these Obama bots.
It's terribly frustrating, I know. But this is how I see it, from my experience.