Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
You're Scaring Me, Obama: Let the Bush Years Die
Don't even get me started on your vote for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout.
I cast a ballot for you in November, but I just can't share in this moment of collective euphoria over your election.
So, if your transition team really wants feedback on "where President-Elect Obama should lead this country," here's a Top Five list:
1. Dump the Bush Doctrine and don't start more wars
You've made it clear that the US has to "take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights" and you've argued for "more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11."
What exactly does that mean?
Take troops out of Iraq and shove them into Afghanistan? Further destabilize Pakistan?
The whole idea of preemptive war (a.k.a. the Bush Doctrine) has no place in a civilized society and must be laid to rest, along with those sacrificed in Bush's military adventurism these past eight years.
Yet your approach to preemptive war, Mr. Obama, is nuanced at best.
During the January 2008 Democratic presidential debate, you said that if the US had "actionable intelligence" and Pakistan didn't "take on Al Qaida in their territory," then "I would strike." You added, " And that's the flaw of the Bush doctrine. It wasn't that he went after those who attacked America. It was that he went after those who didn't."
No, the flaw of the Bush Doctrine is that it's just plain wrong. We've learned that the hard way.
2. Ditch the warmongers
What's with all of the hawks in your new administration?
You presented yourself as a peace candidate and then chose Joe Biden as your VP. Yes, he brought in the white male vote, but he also backed the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Just last month Biden warned that if you were elected, there would be "an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy." He said that you would make some "incredibly tough decisions" that could alienate the Democratic base, because if decisions are "popular, they're probably not sound."
In other words, a popular decision, one that the majority of the people wants, is probably not a good decision. Democracy to Biden…
And then there's Robert Gates, widely rumored to be staying on as your Defense Secretary. Questions about Gates' role in Iran-Contra, not to mention his skewing of intelligence about Russia, still linger.
But especially disturbing is his recent push for beefing up the US nuclear arsenal: "As long as other nations have or seek nuclear weapons – and can potentially threaten us, our allies and friends – then we must have a deterrent capacity that makes it clear that challenging the United States in the nuclear arena, or with weapons of mass destruction, could result in an overwhelming, catastrophic response."
Let's get this straight: if other nations are even imagined to "seek" nuclear weapons, that "could result in an overwhelming, catastrophic response" from the US.
Obama, you've often insisted on taking "no options off the table" in dealing with Iran. How does Gates' proposal for the preemptive use of nuclear weapons factor in there?
While we're on the topic of warmongers in your midst… Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff? Yet another hawk, hell-bent on Iran and enamored with nuclear weapons.
And now we've got Clinton as Secretary of State.
Why is it that none of the 23 senators and 133 House Reps who voted against the war in Iraq are even on a short-list for these critical posts?
3. Close Guantanamo – and the whole system of secret prisons
Shutting down Gitmo is said to be a priority for your new administration. Terrific.
But what about Bagram? What about the other CIA "black site" secret prisons set up in Afghanistan, Thailand, Eastern Europe and elsewhere? What about the CIA torture flights? Will those end too?
Closing Gitmo also raises questions over how "high value" defendants will be handled. Your administration is reportedly considering setting up an alternative court system to deal with sensitive cases. But what safeguards will be in place to be sure that this new system won't degenerate into kangaroo courts, like Bush's military commissions?
It's a disturbing signal that you've appointed John Brennan, who has supported extraordinary rendition and warrantless wiretapping, to help review intelligence agencies for your administration. As former CIA and State Department analyst Mel Goodman noted, Brennan "sat there at [former CIA Director George] Tenet's knee when they passed judgment on torture and abuse, on extraordinary renditions, on black sites, on secret prisons. He was part of all of that decision making."
And this is who will help lead us out of this mess?
You've criticized the use of torture, yet reportedly will not bring criminal charges against those who authorized or conducted torture during the Bush years. Your administration doesn't see it as politically expedient, and Bush might give "preemptive" pardons anyway.
But can we really end this dark chapter in our nation's history without even an investigation? A Truth Commission, perhaps? Providing blanket immunity to all low-level and senior government officials won't prevent possible war crimes from happening again. Quite the opposite.
4. Expose Bush & Co., and ditch the national surveillance state
Speaking of war crimes, how about Bush, Cheney and the rest? You'll soon be given access to Bush-era secret orders and opinions authorizing everything from surveillance to detention. You'll no doubt rescind many, to great fanfare, but what about sharing this evidence of Bush-year excesses with the public?
Yes, Bush could file a lawsuit and invoke executive privilege, but it's worth the fight. The only other option is shielding Bush & Co., similar to how you will reportedly shield those government officials involved in torture. But the public deserves to know. And if Bush administration officials violated the law, they should be prosecuted.
Now, back to your vote for both the PATRIOT Act reauthorization in 2006 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amendment in 2008. These and other rollbacks in domestic civil liberties under Bush are inexcusable and must be addressed. We'll be waiting for you to do that.
5. Choose Main Street (not Wall Street)
Just this month you promised Americans that they can "turn the page on policies that have put the greed and irresponsibility of Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street."
Yet, as Bloomberg notes, "almost half the people" on your Transition Economic Advisory Board "have held fiduciary positions at companies that, to one degree or another, either fried their financial statements, helped send the world into an economic tailspin, or both."
This includes, for example, Anne Mulcahy and Richard Parsons, both of whom were Fannie Mae directors when the company fudged accounting rules. Ditto for another of your team members, William Daley.
Mulcahy and Parsons additionally held executive posts when their companies (Xerox Corp. and Time Warner Inc., respectively) got busted for accounting fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Also on your team is Richard Rubin, who as Bloomberg notes, was "chairman of Citigroup Inc.'s executive committee when the bank pushed bogus analyst research, helped Enron Corp. cook its books, and got caught baking its own. He was a director from 2000 to 2006 at Ford Motor Co., which also committed accounting fouls and now is begging Uncle Sam for Citigroup-style bailout cash."
The list of questionable appointees to your Transitional Economic Advisory Board goes on and on, begging the question: Is this really the best you could come up with? How about Joseph Stiglitz, Sheila Bair, Nouriel Roubini or James K. Galbraith, for starters? Someone who represents labor?
Meanwhile, we're stuck with this nasty bailout bill – which you voted for.
Others, such as Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), realized the bill's problems and voted against it. Feingold said that the Wall Street bailout legislation, "fails to reform the flawed regulatory structure that permitted this crisis to arise in the first place. And it doesn't do enough to address the root cause of the credit market collapse, namely the housing crisis. Taxpayers deserve a plan that puts their concerns ahead of those who got us into this mess."
Feingold was right.
In short, Mr. President-elect, you promised "Change we can believe in," but across the board it's looking a lot more like "Business as usual."
202 Comments so far
Show AllHeather, you initially "lost me" when you said you cast a vote for Obama after recognizing all of his policies that you oppose. It doesn't make sense to me to support a candidate who does not reflect your views, but I understand that you see it differently. Although my initial reaction is to say, "I told you so," regarding the issues you raised in this article, I would rather use this as learning opportunity to identify what the real causes of these political issues are, and, therefore, what the best solutions are.
I think that if you viewed the policy issues in this article only as reflections of Republican ideology or George Bush, you might logically conclude that a Democratic administration would be different. As for myself, I view the issues here as being a result of SYSTEMIC problems in our government, largely the influence of corporations on our elected leaders, which neither the Democrats or the Republicans want to change because, at best, they simply support this view of government structure, or, at worst, because they are personally benefiting from it regardless of its impact on the rest of us. Nader/Gonzales had a specific policy to reduce the influence of corporations on our leaders, which was to eliminate corporate personhood, which would then not give these companies the right to lobby Congress. Neither of the major 2 parties support this kind of systemic change, which is one reason why Obama is now seeming like "business as usual."
I read recently that the best way to approach an issue is to spend 90% of your time diagnosing the NATURE of the problem and 10% on the solution. Heather, are you starting to see the problem, now?
"I read recently that the best way to approach an issue is to spend 90% of your time diagnosing the NATURE of the problem and 10% on the solution."
Actually, you have that reversed. You should spend 90% of your time on solutions, not problems.
--
Eric Patton
Cincinnati, OH
ebpatton@yahoo.com
http://www.new.facebook.com/people/Eric_Patton/663783881
OOPS! Thanks for the correction. I outfoxed myself on that one. I think, though, that one's solutions depend greatly on how one views the nature of the problem.
In Permaculture, the problem IS the solution....
meaning, the solution to the problem is inherent in the system that created the problem in the first place... which implies that the solution is under our nose the whole time, we are just too focused to see it for what it is....
In a garden, if you have a pest that eats most of your entire monocrop, you can do two main things... spray massive chemicals to kill the pest (corporate money for our reps)
Or... plant a diversity AND abundance of crops, (i.e. nominate and appoint progressives, conservatives, and moderates to cabinet and heads of dept's) so pests will naturally remain in check.
Nice analogy!
It's slightly annoying when this country's foreign policy over the past 8 years is referred to as the "Bush Doctrine," as if wars of aggression, imperial bullying, and an obsession with global dominance wasn't a part of American foreign policy before George W. Bush was appointed president by the Supreme Court in 2000. The so-called Bush Doctrine has long been a staple of this country's foreign policy, under both Democratic and Republican administrations. The one thing that's unique about the Bush administration's approach is that it's explicitly stated that the US will attack any country at any time for any reason it deems necessary. Past administrations have had the very same doctrine. They just didn't announce it so publicly and bluntly.
Well actually the Bush doctrine refers primarily to the doctrine of preemptive war and a few other foreign policy mandates that support the PNAC. Prior to GWB such things were not done as a matter of publicly stated policy, and when they were done we always found some justification so that we would appear to be doing good things as a responsible super power. Under the Bush doctrine there is no loner a requirement to appear responsible or to seek rational justifications for our actions. We just go in, bomb an invade whom ever we like, cause we think they may some day pose a threat to something or someone in our empire.
I think that Obama will most likely overturn the Bush doctrine and return us to the old days of pretending we start wars only out of self defense or the defense of others.
"Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups."
- John Kenneth Galbraith
Don't blame me I voted to Nader.
Aren't you the proud one! Do you realize that "Nader" spelled backwards is "Redan"? (Just ignore me, I'm slightly drunk, LOL)
I cast a ballot for you in November, but I just can't share in this moment of collective euphoria over your election.
Me too. What I'm really waiting for is January 20th when I will host WANKERFEST 2009, a "gigantic" celebration marking the political demise of George Wanker Bush. I am so looking forward to that day! After that, it'll just be business as almost usual.
Sioux Rose
MORDECHAI: IS everyone on CD (trolls excepted) invited?
Yes, I agree with Gr8ful1997. The Democrats and the Republicans are but two factions of the same party representing corporations and big money. Meaningful change will only come from outside of these two entrenched and corrupt political parties.
.
A NYTimes article yesterday showed that Presidents that have surrounded themselves with political opponents set themselves up for obstructionist and difficult times. Biden the demagogue, Emanuel the Zionist and now Ramstadt the Republican drug czar who is against needle exchange and would prosecute marijuana providers and users, are a bad beginning.
Obama, listen to your base. Don't betray us.
If you are justly afraid the conservatives will kill you for being too liberal, talk to Senator Gravel about the referendum. It's the way to let the people decide and take the heat off yourself.
Look at the enormous amount of money Obama took from Wall Street. Just who do you think his real base is? Wall Street has chosen him as the new face of the American empire. It's all about marketing: Obama is charismatic, likable, intelligent, articulate, and sophisticated--the exact opposite (in terms of personality, anyway) of the Buffoon in Chief the country and the rest of the world is sick of. The usual unpopular foreign policy, regressive social programs, and economic policies favoring the wealthy--all of which Obama has shown he will support-- will be easier to pass through with a popular president in the White House. In short, the American empire simply has a fresh face. That's the only kind of change we can realistically expect to see.
You may be right. But one would like to think that the first African-American Pres. is not all about big campaign bribes from Wall Street, but of many more smaller ones from Main Street.
I think he is adopting Clinton's survival formula for lack of his own. He may have won the election, but the oligarchy remains in power. They could kill him in a second in many different ways and put their friendly demagogue Biden in his place. Biden, the self-proclaimed Zionist who thinks what the majority wants is wrong.
Obama is looking like a house negro trying to please his white masters to survive. I guess he figures that being a live father, husband and the first Afro-American Pres. is enough of a revolution for the time being.
That's the only change we're likely to see unless he starts to lead with the referendum. Decentralized direct democracy may be the only way of circumventing the money-power, of complying with all the people's wishes and of taking the heat off himself.
Sioux Rose
EZE: I was thinking along the same lines, for chiefly 2 reasons: 1. There was a discernible point (pretty close to his gaining the nomination) where an ostensible SHIFT to the right intensified and 2. He must have heard reports from The Southern Poverty Center and possible federal agencies that assassination STATEMENTS were increasing. Given the actual history of the past 50 years, only a fool would rule out the possibility. ANY secret service man could turn out to be a foil... the reality of the US presidency today is scarier than any sci-fi film based on a secret conspiracy.
Mr. Obama is not the first African American president. Mr. Obama does not have the history to be African American or black. African Americans were brought here under horrendous circumstances to build the American empire as slave labor. African Americans are all black Africans ethnically except with some white rape blood in some cases.
Mr. Obama is bi-racial. His father is Kenyan, all black African. His mother is mid-western American angol, white.
Get your fact correct, please.
Sioux Rose
JOSH: Very well-stated, and unfortunately, I think you are quite correct.
Too late ezeflyer. Obama intended to betray the base from the start, his doing so is no surprise to anyone who was really looking. But hey we can at least rest easy that Sarah Palin is not a heart beat away from the presidency.
"Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups."
- John Kenneth Galbraith
"Obama, listen to your base."
He is. The rich and the corporate.
What, you thought YOU were part of his base? You're an idiot.
--
Eric Patton
Cincinnati, OH
ebpatton@yahoo.com
http://www.new.facebook.com/people/Eric_Patton/663783881
His base? Ha. You shoulda gone with Nader.
If Obama does not indict Bush and Cheney for war crimes, as his #1 priority, then in my view, it makes him an accessory to the fact and he is as guilty as they are for all the death and destruction in Iraq. It is like I have said many times: expecting a real change from the duopoly is pure insanity and if anything; the 2006 election of the Democrats that sold out the American people on Iraq and the impeachment of Bush, should have given the supporters of them a wake up call!
Obama will not indict Bush and Cheney for war crimes. He's already proven time and again that he will not challenge the status quo. As for him being an accomplice in these atrocities, it could be argued that he already is, having voted in favor of some $300 billion in funding for the Iraq war.
I second the comments by Josh Miles and gr8ful1997. Although I was glad he beat Hillary in the primaries, Obama lost me for good the day after his nomination with his fawning, obsequious speech to AIPAC. All his other actions (FISA, PATRIOT, Iraq war funding, advocacy of US military incursions into Pakistan, hyping of the bogus Iranian threat, Wall Street bailout, selection of the awful pro-war Joe Biden, then the utterly odious Rahm Emanuel, then Daschle as point man for health care reform, consideration of Hillary Clinton--Hillary Clinton!--as Secretary of State, etc. etc. etc.) have just further alienated me and confirmed my initial assessment of him as a no-change candidate. And there was simply no way I was going to vote for a someone who promised to drop more 2,000 lb bombs on the mud houses of impoverished Afghani villagers. Afghanistan is not the "good" war and never has been.
But at least I never had any illusions about the candidate. It's been almost amusing to see his big "Fuck you" to the naive netroots suckers that idolized him and played a critical role in his electoral victory (Daily Kos, Firedoglake and similar) when he defended Lieberman. Well, why would they expect him to do anything different? He campaigned for the man against Lamont in 2006. I'm wondering what exactly it will take for these self-described "progressives" to coalesce into an independent social movement that will take Obama and his policies on as fiercely as they would if it were a Republican administration that served them up.
But I'm not holding my breath: they'll find excuses for him in just the same way that Republicans were able to defend Bristol Palin's unwed teen pregnancy (you can imagine how they would have reacted if a teen daughter of Obama's had got herself knocked up).
I voted for Obama because Bush Repugs on tv made me physically ill.
Voting for Obama rather than McCain is like choosing Gonorrhea over syphilis.
That was according to plan. If you think you were sick last month, just wait.
re: 1. "'more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11.'
What exactly does that mean?" ['finish the fight']?
Exactly the right question, and one that I am trying to convince America that we need to ask and answer.
To recap: After 9-11 Congress gave the President the power to use the US military against whoever he deemed had committed and supported the attacks of 9-11, for the purpose of preventing future terrorism. Bush announced that 'al-Qaeda' was responsible and that 'the Taliban' would be treated the same way. These groups are the enemies of the US.
How can we 'prevent future terrorism' by these groups? Obviously an impossibility, as long as these groups exist. Victory can only be achieved by the President announcing that these groups no longer exist (and thus are incapable of future terrorism). It is unlikely that the President would make such an announcement and risk being the most hated person in America if a horrific terrorist act occurs and is blamed on those supposedly non-existent groups.
Defeat in this war is obviously unacceptable. The President will not announce that we are quiting ('cut and run').
No hope for victory, no appetite for defeat, the President will behave as LBJ did (in Vietnam, when he wanted to focus on domestic issues) and continue this war, trying new strategy after new tactic (surge after surge) to win an impossible war or at least hold off defeat until someone else in is charge.
Is that what we want, again?
Paul Siemering
Great piece, Heather, thanks.
the reason many of us voted for Obama without much confidence he would become a bold progressive pres was we needed to get the repubs out of washington. the need was desperate, and we did the right thing. we are now about to experience a big let down if Obama cannot dig himself out of those war mongering holes he's dug. ok, so it was just to win the election. but everyone breaks campaign promises, and he can too. I would like for him to announce that there is no longer a "war on terror", that the whole idea was a scam from the start. "Also "the terrorists who really attacked us" died in the attack. what bush has been doing is a war on Islam. Obama can stop it as it was started- by executive order.
Heather is quite right to be alarmed at Obama's appointments, as they are sending depressing signals of continuing with endless war. He hasn't taken office yet, so we need to remind him he has a clear mandate from the people to give peace a chance.
I have been preparing some helpful suggestions about how he can do this without reneging on all of his campaign talk.
for example he told AIPAC " Israel has no better friend than me"
in his inaugural, he could repeat that line and then add ...and friends don't let friends bomb refugee camps or bulldoze olive groves or build walls against it's citizens" etc.
"He hasn't taken office yet, so we need to remind him he has a clear mandate from the people to give peace a chance."
Give me a break. Do you think he gives a shit what you think? He got your money and he got your votes and he got you making phone calls and pounding the pavement and registering voters on his behalf and now he doesn't need you anymore. Maybe in another four years he might be willing to throw a sop to you. Till them, it's so long, suckers. He's assured his corporate backers and big campaign contributers outright that he will not cave in to pressure from "the left" (i.e. what is supposed to be the Democratic party base) so you can be sure that he will be impervious to your pleas.
He'll be one of the better Republican presidents, certainly an improvement on Bush or McCain, but that's about as much as anyone can hope for. Hope and change my ass.
Precisely!
A big AMEN to that.
Great put down, Jean.
I am another of those persons who voted for Obama while disagreeing with just about everything he said on the campaign trail, from Iran to Healthcare. I voted for him to strike a possibly fatal blow against racism in this country. The symbol of a black President, however beholden to the plutocracy, is a powerful social change agent. Dr. Cornel West said much the same thing, emphasizing that "symbols matter."
Beyond this, I expected to engage in a four year long pressure campaign with our new Neoliberal-In-Chief to force him to make good on the hopes he stirred up in so many Americans. He must know that to carry on "business as usual," after the kind of populist charismatic campaign he mounted, would doom him to be a one-term wonder.
A symbolic victory? Those of us in the environmental movement should already know that symbolic victories mean nothing over time, while the destruction continues.
abdosoliman46
alanka I will weigh before calling Obama liberal Other with I am with you. I agree that electing Obama is big below to racism, I went door to door for Obama in the last days of the campaign. I talked to some older people who told me they voted already and added after some hesitation and "I voted for him. Their tone of voice and the phrasing, older white women mostly, gave me a feeling that it was a struggle for some people to choose a black person for office, but their sense of responsibility was stronger than their prejudice. I agree with you symbols matter.
Now, deceit was a factor in starting the war in Iraq, but many people believe ARABS HATE US?, and they ARE TAKING OUR MONEY FOR THEIR OIL! WHY THEY HATE US? WE ARE THE BIGGEST, BEST COUNTRY IN HISTORY! Real changes would not occur without dealing with the inability or unwillingness of confronting the difficult issues of concreting one's national history. But this election proves that big changes are slow and painful, but possible.
Well, what are we doing here in the house reading the comments on Common Dreams?
We should be in the STREETS!!
Rise and follow Charlie
I suggest you re-call the president- elect. Big mistake. McCain/Palin was the way to go. Then you wouldn't have to waste your time speculating.(lol) You want certainty, something you can measure from your armchairs; McCain was the guy for you.
I'm wondering what all these McCain people are doing on CD? (lol)
Obama just selected Gen. James Jones as his National Security Advisor. Couldn't have chosen better. This guy is really good. He was Third Marines back in 67-68. First class all the way. He turned down the Republicans when they asked him.
Well you know Thomas the fact is the Republicans figured that they would get more support here on CD than they could from the Majority of the American people. It looks like they were right! (lol)
"He was Third Marines back in 67-68. First class all the way. He turned down the Republicans when they asked him."
Two good points.
1)He is a Marine
2)He turned down the Republicans.
Sounds good to me.
Thomas I see they are starting to pick up the rocks again. The mob is furious! Time to run for cover.
Now you've got me worried!
Well, Heather, that is what you get for voting for Obama and his "change" talk.
Gee, are "progressives" just now figuring out that a darker shade of skin does not have a thing to do with shifts in policy?
What used to 'scare me' is how people like the writer can still vote for Obama while realizing his serious shortcomings; how she (and other supposed progressives) will give unconditional support without a demand. I have come to accept (with reluctance and regret) that the nature of the voting public will not demand the necessary proactive change, instead willing to accept the upcoming crisis that will be much more difficult to handle, with much more serious complications.
Like waiting for a cold to turn into pneumonia before dealing with it. We are heading towards an economic, environmental, and social disaster.
“If there is no struggle, there is no progress,” declared Frederick Douglass in 1857, in response to those who suggested that the great abolitionist was pushing too hard for an end to human bondage. “Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”
Yes well I too voted for Obama even though I saw nothing in him that I value. I mean it is cool that we have a racial mixed pres. The whole bit about post racial America definitely has entertainment value in it's absurdity. It's cool that the repugs were so thoroughly trounced across the board, mostly thanks to Obama. But do I hold out any hope for real change? Do I have any reason too?
I was never one of Obama's hopeful, the only change I believe in is in a mayonnaise jar on my dresser. I voted for Obama for three reasons. 1 I wanted to see my home state of Virginia go blue, just for fun. 2 I could not stand the thought that Sarah Palin might be a heart beat away form the presidency, she is one scary MILF. And 3 though the idea of a protest vote for Cynthia McKinney appealed to me, when I thought about it I decided I would not really want her in the white house if she did stand a chance, same goes for Nader and all the other 3rd party candidates out there.
Oh well at least I do not have to worry about being disappointed in Obama, have had no expectations of him as anything but a disappointment leave me nowhere to go except to be pleasantly surprised if he actually accomplishes anything worthwhile.
"Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups."
- John Kenneth Galbraith
artrod-
So you actually prefer Obama and his lackeys to any third party candidate? Even though you "saw nothing in him that [you] value?"
U.S. politics and government is an absolute joke.
Well that is a bit of an oversimplification, but not entirely off the mark. I did not find a third party candidate that I would have really wanted to see as president if they had a chance of winning. The fact is that they had no chance of winning, because as you so aptly pointed out "U.S. politics and government is an absolute joke." and a bad one at that.
It's OK though I feel no need to justify my choice in the ballot box. It's not like I had any really good choices, and Virginia did go blue after all, that and a dollar will buy me a cup of coffee.
"Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups."
- John Kenneth Galbraith
Well as a displaced New Yorker who grew up in Florida, I must say that I'm happy to hear the tide is changing in VA and other traditionally red states. I cast my ballot in MA this year - as if it really mattered. But I did still vote for my 3rd party candidate.
Nice quote from Galbraith.
Why would you not want to see Cynthia McKinney in the White House?
I understand that you live in a newly swung state.... I would have held my nose and done the same If I wasnt in a solid blue state myself... (have you heard of the Nader TRADER?)
She is a progressive African American woman who knows what she is talking about...
kind of like Nader, Kucinich, Hillary, and Ron Paul all at once....
No wonder she pisses people off by speaking truth to power... she is challenging all of the existing power structures at the same time... too much change at once... cannot be co-opted...
She even pisses of the progressive journalists in my home town by talking about investigating the class-war crimes of Katrina and Nine-Eleven... even calling for an investigation into the mismanagement of these two (staged) events has sent them into a tailspin dismissing her as a crackpot...
I worked on the McKinney-Leach bill in 1999 to end logging on public lands, saving $9 billion annually of useless logging roads built each year, and redirect those funds to hire and train out-of-work loggers and mill-workers in green-jobs, with billions to spare... Until she was railroaded out of Congress by a false accusation.
What was it that appealed to you about her?
Her call to investigate 9-11?
Investigate Katrina?
Investigate corporate fraud?
Investigate the election fraud in 2000?