Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Published on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
Rhetoric and Reality
I just received a letter from President Obama. Right there on the outside envelope are the words “I need you.” After not answering several letters which I have mailed and faxed to him, I was, for the briefest of moments, curious about this personal plea for help. Then, of course, I realized that it was a form letter from Mr. Obama via the auspices of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
I started reading the two page, single-spaced missive. His words prompt responses.
He opens with undeniable declarations, to wit: “There are times in the life of our nation when America’s course can only be set by the concerted effort of citizens determined to pull our country through.
This is one of those times—and your personal involvement in moving America forward is absolutely essential.”
Just what this “personal involvement” is all about is unclear, other than to make a “contribution of $25, $35 or even $50 to the Democratic National Committee” which is somehow supposed to make sure that “America’s families are actively engaged in the critical decisions that lie ahead.”
This money will fund something called “Organizing for America” under the DNC which will unleash “volunteers and activists” to “carry our message…all across this great country of ours.”
The “message” includes “reforms that will bring down the cost of health insurance for families.” But Mr. Obama has taken the one reform—single payer, which he used to support—off the table and replaced it with a bill over a 1000 pages that will do just the opposite—to the delight of the drug and health insurance industries (see singlepayeraction.org).
Continuing into the letter, Mr. Obama emphasizes that “in communities all across America, people are worried about whether they’re going to have a job and paycheck to count on.”
But he has done nothing to support the card check reform to facilitate workers forming unions—an objective he supported during his presidential campaign. Still no push on Congress, no ringing statement of support, as he has uttered numerous times in promoting his various bailouts of Big Business.
One way to help low income workers to pay their bills is to elevate the federal minimum wage to $10 an hour which is what the minimum wage was in 1968, adjusted for inflation. The federal minimum wage is now $7.25. Adding $2.75 per hour would increase consumer demand in our faltering real economy.
The Democrats and Republicans, who gave bailouts in the trillions of dollars for the paper economy of the mismanaged, speculating, reckless big banks, big investment firms and insurance giants like AIG, should provide some economic assistance to workers on Main Street and not just Wall Street.
Mr. Obama writes: “Let’s put America’s future in the hands of people who are willing to work hard, willing to take their responsibilities seriously….” Perhaps Mr. Obama should read the short book by one of his Harvard Law School professors, Richard Parker, titled Here the People Rule. Professor Parker makes a strong case that the government has a constitutional duty to facilitate the political and civic energies of the people.
An important pathway toward this objective is to provide facilities whereby the people can easily band together in their nonprofit civic advocacy associations which they would fund themselves. Mr. Obama can start this process now by supporting a provision to establish a financial consumer association (FCA) with the pending legislation to start a consumer financial regulatory agency.
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) supported a Financial Consumer Association in 1985 when he was in the House of Representatives. Remember the savings and loan bailouts?
A similar provision can be included in the pending health insurance legislation. These facilities help to redress the present severe imbalance of power between the unorganized people and the corporate power machines which are often taxpayer subsidized and able to deduct lobbying expenses.
These consumer facilities have some precedents. In Obama’s home state of Illinois thousands of consumers of electric, telephone and gas companies voluntarily pay their membership dues to their private advocacy group: Illinois CUB (see http://www.citizensutilityboard.org).
He asks for our “personal participation.” Well why doesn’t he meet with the leaders of consumer, worker and poverty groups in the White House with the frequency with which he meets with the CEOs of giant corporations in the banking, insurance (Aetna), oil, gas, coal, auto and other commercial interests?
Instead he has turned his back on the very constituencies which gave him most of his votes. These are the people who remember Mr. Obama’s campaign promises and all his intonations of “hope and change,” including moving to reform the privileged tax laws for the rich and corporations and revising the notorious trade agreements.
Since Mr. Obama wants “personal participation,” how about moving for D.C. statehood or at least his expressed desire for voting rights and Congressional representation for the residents of the nation’s capital? As the months drag on with a Democratic Congress and a Democratic White House, people are losing hope for any change in their present state of political servitude.
I started reading the two page, single-spaced missive. His words prompt responses.
He opens with undeniable declarations, to wit: “There are times in the life of our nation when America’s course can only be set by the concerted effort of citizens determined to pull our country through.
This is one of those times—and your personal involvement in moving America forward is absolutely essential.”
Just what this “personal involvement” is all about is unclear, other than to make a “contribution of $25, $35 or even $50 to the Democratic National Committee” which is somehow supposed to make sure that “America’s families are actively engaged in the critical decisions that lie ahead.”
This money will fund something called “Organizing for America” under the DNC which will unleash “volunteers and activists” to “carry our message…all across this great country of ours.”
The “message” includes “reforms that will bring down the cost of health insurance for families.” But Mr. Obama has taken the one reform—single payer, which he used to support—off the table and replaced it with a bill over a 1000 pages that will do just the opposite—to the delight of the drug and health insurance industries (see singlepayeraction.org).
Continuing into the letter, Mr. Obama emphasizes that “in communities all across America, people are worried about whether they’re going to have a job and paycheck to count on.”
But he has done nothing to support the card check reform to facilitate workers forming unions—an objective he supported during his presidential campaign. Still no push on Congress, no ringing statement of support, as he has uttered numerous times in promoting his various bailouts of Big Business.
One way to help low income workers to pay their bills is to elevate the federal minimum wage to $10 an hour which is what the minimum wage was in 1968, adjusted for inflation. The federal minimum wage is now $7.25. Adding $2.75 per hour would increase consumer demand in our faltering real economy.
The Democrats and Republicans, who gave bailouts in the trillions of dollars for the paper economy of the mismanaged, speculating, reckless big banks, big investment firms and insurance giants like AIG, should provide some economic assistance to workers on Main Street and not just Wall Street.
Mr. Obama writes: “Let’s put America’s future in the hands of people who are willing to work hard, willing to take their responsibilities seriously….” Perhaps Mr. Obama should read the short book by one of his Harvard Law School professors, Richard Parker, titled Here the People Rule. Professor Parker makes a strong case that the government has a constitutional duty to facilitate the political and civic energies of the people.
An important pathway toward this objective is to provide facilities whereby the people can easily band together in their nonprofit civic advocacy associations which they would fund themselves. Mr. Obama can start this process now by supporting a provision to establish a financial consumer association (FCA) with the pending legislation to start a consumer financial regulatory agency.
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) supported a Financial Consumer Association in 1985 when he was in the House of Representatives. Remember the savings and loan bailouts?
A similar provision can be included in the pending health insurance legislation. These facilities help to redress the present severe imbalance of power between the unorganized people and the corporate power machines which are often taxpayer subsidized and able to deduct lobbying expenses.
These consumer facilities have some precedents. In Obama’s home state of Illinois thousands of consumers of electric, telephone and gas companies voluntarily pay their membership dues to their private advocacy group: Illinois CUB (see http://www.citizensutilityboard.org).
He asks for our “personal participation.” Well why doesn’t he meet with the leaders of consumer, worker and poverty groups in the White House with the frequency with which he meets with the CEOs of giant corporations in the banking, insurance (Aetna), oil, gas, coal, auto and other commercial interests?
Instead he has turned his back on the very constituencies which gave him most of his votes. These are the people who remember Mr. Obama’s campaign promises and all his intonations of “hope and change,” including moving to reform the privileged tax laws for the rich and corporations and revising the notorious trade agreements.
Since Mr. Obama wants “personal participation,” how about moving for D.C. statehood or at least his expressed desire for voting rights and Congressional representation for the residents of the nation’s capital? As the months drag on with a Democratic Congress and a Democratic White House, people are losing hope for any change in their present state of political servitude.
Comments are closed
197 Comments so far
Show AllSorry Mr. Nader, but I doubt he's going to read your responses. You and I are nothing to him but barcodes on a presorted, non-profit rate envelope.
These Ds are shameless, throwing our money at Wall Street and then demanding more to help them pass their bogus "reforms."
Call it "the audacity of mugging."
The letter will provide the Dems a gauge of how many suckers they can still count on to grasp their ankles and ante up.
"Instead he has turned his back on the very constituencies which gave him most of his votes."
This sentence may be the understatement of the century.
I have not received such a letter from the Dems because I'm not a Democrat. I wonder how Ralph got onto their list?
q
I actually am a registered Democrat, but since my registration was at my campus address, I haven't gotten any such letters.
I do get Heritage Foundation letters and surveys though. I make sure to pick the most liberal positions on the surveys they have and send it back to them, both to annoy them and to cost them the postage :-)
Heck, I find even the most "left" responses on those phony Democrat fund raising polls to be too far right for me. For example, there was never a box for " Get out (of Iraq and Afghanistan now"; or "universal government run, single payer".
So, I would write-in my preferences, then send it back with no contribution.
And maybe I'm naive, but I find it rather disturbing and depressing that even someone with the stature of Ralph Nader can write the US president and be ignored - all he gets is that insulting DNC junk mail.
Even I once got a phone call back from my Republican Congressman when I called in complaining about his aides calling the police on single payer activists trying to visit his home district office.
Well it's not exactly unprecedented. The Bush administration refused to open an email from the EPA concerning climate change (I think, it was a while ago). Refusing to even pay attention to official reports from their own agencies.
I'd bet that Rahm just told the intern who sorts the mail to burn anything from Nader.
I haven't gotten one of these either. If I do, though, I have a feeling it will be because at one point -- thinking that Obama was serious about real health care reform -- I signed up on the OFA website. I'm a registered Independent. I'm definitely on their e-mail list, which is always an interesting read (the spin), especially when you watching and educating yourself on the whole mess daily.
I feel one of the most important points Ralph made was who Obama meets with in the WH and who he shuts out. To me that speaks volumes as to why I should not support this WH. I will target my support to those in Congress who are working on behalf of the people.
I can't believe I voted for Obama last year. I don't care how much showing off Obama does in the White House on our Hindu festivities. He can do all his fake Diwali stunts for all I care but shamelessly begging us for "help" and then redirecting that money towards Wall Street is no different than the Christian Missionaries who tried to silence the Hindus and Muslims in India and the Middle East through bribery and shepard wolf playing. It is now obvious that a vote for Obama or Mccain was a vote for the status quo. I for one offer my sincere apologies as we will all have another hell to pay for this.
Allow me to join you.
Gentlemen - there is no need to berate yourselves for voting that way. it is clear that there was no way obama would not have won anyway...and you simply - at the times that you voted followed what you believed was the most convincing ...
often that is the mistake many or all of us make in life. the important thing is - RIGHT NOW _ that you also educated yourselves about your own choices and "know better"...after which there is a new phase of decision making in life.
4 years ago - when obama spoke that "noble" speech in the democratic convention - i immediately e mail people and said:
"this man is presidential material...he can win the presidency if he plays his cards right".
I was of course alreayd skeptical that the US politics will get better. it's TOO steeped in corruption, fascism, corporatism and a decade of marginalizgin someone like ralph nader has proven that...
indeed - the corporatocracy - which DEFINES america and its political system - including just about every aspect of its machinery - which we also saw was so ruthless in the 2000 elections if it came down to the "wire' - openly flouting the citizenry or world opinion about the OBVIOUS - rigged system PROVED it again and again.
and YET - I was personally hopefull that SOMEHOW - should it HAVE to be obama he is moral , ethical and truthful enough to know what is RIGHT from WRONG as simply as a child would.
but my OWN personal choice was Nader -- if only.
i was SPARED the "voting" choice because i am not a citizen and I can not say that I would have been as "immune" to obama's "charms" as I would like to believe..knowing that his positions even THEN were already INFERIOR to Nader's or ideas that I personally think ought to be explored and enhanced .
there is no point in debasing yourselves with a "guilt trip". it only takes away energy from yourselves.
you have done what you could at the moments you voted.
Without the influence of nosferatu in our midst, your rationale would make sense. But I have to take the opposite position, and say that regarding elite candidates, if the people entertain nosferatu the people will likely be bitten.
I am also a registered Democrat who didn't get one of these letters. But, my uncle - who is a rabid Republican - did! Oooh, did the fur fly at his house! In between listening to Rush and Glen my uncle called me ranting and raving...and all I could do was laugh!
The Dems still believe Obama won in 2008 because of his brilliant campaign.
Reality is that there was no way the party in power could win after Americans experienced the financial meltdown in Sept. 08. Had the meltdown occurred after the election McCain and Palin would be in the White House.
In 2012 the economy will be no better than it is now and the Dems will be the party in power.
Maybe we can get Palin-Liz Cheney in the White House in 2012?
The President makes $400,000 per year while Rush Limbaugh makes $40,000,000 per year , plus a $100,000,000 signing bonus for his latest 8 year contract.
Palin is going for the media gig.
"Since Mr. Obama wants “personal participation,” how about moving for D.C. statehood or at least his expressed desire for voting rights and Congressional representation for the residents of the nation’s capital?"
Amen. I met some DC Green Party people at the 350. org rally and march this past Saturday, and they were promoting statehood too.
Sorry, not a chance. Won't be allowed for the obvious reasons.
What obvious reasons are those?
That people living in the seat of governance should not have the opportunity to favor themselves.
That D.C should be politically neutral in every way as the residents of D.C. most certainly do not reflect the views of the American people. If they have moved to D.C. they cannot be neutral.
Simply by living in D.C. they begin to get the idea that they know better than others whats good for the Country.
The Senator Fulbright said it was the worst idea he had ever heard is good enough reason actually. He was actually a Statesman, something thats become extinct in D.C.
Sam Rayburn agreed with him and as you know....Texans are never wrong (lol)
Wrong dude, a hell of a lot of DC's population is poor and black or other minorities and have the same concerns as other poor urban areas. The people you're thinking about live in the Maryland and Virginia suburbs.
"Wrong dude, a hell of a lot of DC's population is poor and black or other minorities and have the same concerns as other poor urban areas."
Be that as it may, they better start moving if they want to be represented in government. D.C. was not intended to be an Urban area nor is it going to be in the formal sense. DC Statehood is a non-starter.
As a matter of fact, they put DC in the most inhospitable place they could think of. They didn't WANT anyone living there, they wanted it to be a place that no one would want to spend all that much time in. So they chose a place that was awful in the summer, horrible in the winter, and somewhere that no one would actually WANT to live.
Well...its still a swamp, just a different kind than the boys back then envisioned. Your point is well taken though and historically correct.
Surprised to see you take that position. I've read that D.C. isn't allowed statehood for all the same reasons that Wall St. gets trillions while average folks get shafted.
It's because D.C. is 64% people of color and only 36% white. D.C. statehood would add two Democratic senators and one Democratic representative to Congress, tilting the balance of power away from the oligarchs and their Republican minions. (Less often mentioned, it could also push the Democratic party to the left.)
D.C.'s population of 590,000 is larger than Wyoming's 534,000. Wyoming (tied with Oklahoma as the reddest state in the country) gets to send two senators, one representative (and Dickless Cheney) to Washington, while D.C. doesn't get a single vote in Congress.
Not right, not fair.
Naturally,
Good point. This D.C. representation issue is simular to what occurred leading up to The Civil War. The Missouri Compromise, and The Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act were each part of a power struggle having representation involved.
The reason I take this position is that the population there wasn't meant to be represented.
I couldn't give a damn what the ethnic or racial mix might be. I would say just because someone is a "person of color" it doesn't mean they would automatically be Democratic.
My position is simply that DC should not be given representation because it was never meant to be, it was meant to be the seat of government and that only. Its nothing new, its always been that way.
We don't need a permanent political class in the seat of govermnment.
And while this..."D.C.'s population of 590,000 is larger than Wyoming's 534,000" I'm sure is correct, it shouldn't be. There are far too many folks in Washington, in government. The fewer the better. The more out working in the states and out of Washington the better. The "big picture" thinkers are not whats needed....we need problem solvers.
Take food stamps for instance, every state is different, but thery try to fit round pegs in square holes because its run out of Washington by Washington residents rather than government employees in the state.
I know....blah...blah...blah, but I was trying to explain why.....
Another option I would support that would give DC residents such as myself congressional representation would be to incorporate DC as a city and county in an existing state, most likely Maryland for geographical reasons.
Henry,
have you ever been there recently?
DC is a large, vibrant and, vary livable (albeit expensive), historically black city - like Atlanta or Harlem. The city would not shrink much even of the federal government moved out entirely. The majority of it's residents, many of them poor, have nothing to do with the federal government and have lived there all their lives. They deserve representation.
pjd412's reply is exactly correct. The vast majority of D.C.'s 590,000 residents are not employed by the federal government as you wrongly believe. Most federal employees, appointees, contractors, etc. live OUTSIDE D.C. in more upscale suburban areas in Virginia and Maryland. Denying D.C. citizens the vote because they are a "permanent political class," is ridiculous ... unless you think janitors and security guards are a "permanent political class."
As to your position that D.C. residents were "never meant to be" represented, I suppose you could make the same case against allowing blacks and women to vote. The founding fathers never envisioned anyone but landowning men would get to vote. Times change.
Finally, there is no doubt that the vast majority of non-whites vote for Democrats. If happens in every state, in every election. It's not speculation. It's fact. And, it is therefor true that if D.C. were granted statehood there would be two more Democrats in the Senate.
Ole Ralph sure can smell the odor of mendacity with the best of them. Not only are the Dem's and Obama betraying their constituencies, they are betraying America.
I never thought to see the day when I would come to believe that my President and my Congress would be working against the best interests of America and show such contempt for the American people.
We have had very good Presidents and very bad Presidents, but we have never had a President display such a lack of leadership and courage.
Congress has had its ups and downs, made mistakes, but only over the last two decades, with increasing intensity have they displayed such arrogance and outright indifference to the needs of the American people.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid shame the office's they hold. Those that follow them shame themselves.
hey Henry the 8th, do you work for Fox News? you sure sound like them. Stand with Obama or get out of the way! We don't need more naysayers.
Good God! Its unbelievable that you can still support this bunch. Fox news my ass. If the truth offends you I can't help that.
I will never stand with anyone that shows no leadership. In fact I assure you I intend to stand in the way of this failure ever chance I get unless he changes direction.
Can you name one accomplishment, one thing thats been done to help the country since he took office? Minor small things I can find. But nothing else.
I however can name item after item of bad policies, political mistakes and a trail of broken promises as long as the "Trail of Tears" Not a bad definition of this groups governance by the way.
To stand with Obama is to stand with the corporate interest that runs Washington right now! With Obama supporting all the Bush Wars, weak environmental policies, catering to the insurance and banking industries and increasing military budget plus all the hold overs from the Bush and Clinton era... there's no way I'd support Obama or any of the conservative Democrats in Washington!
Owl 9:45 Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha !!!!!!!!!!!!! May I ask what planet you are from?
It certainly has no information services whatsoever.
Nay.
"We don't need more naysayers."
Wrong! It's exactly what we need.
"I never thought to see the day when I would come to believe that my President and my Congress would be working against the best interests of America and show such contempt for the American people."
And exectly what were you doing from 2001 to January of this year? Are you seriously trying to claim that Bush and Cheney were NOT working to the detriment of the US for their own personal gain?
q
quickstepper
"And exactly what were you doing from 2001 to January of this year? Are you seriously trying to claim that Bush and Cheney were NOT working to the detriment of the US for their own personal gain?"
Ha! Not likely, not at all, but I think as bad as they were, this bunch is worse. Not even Bush and the one I believe is the most evil person ever in power in our country...Cheney, ever tried to do things like this group. They were assholes and killed many of our best kids AND older reserves with their useless wars.
Also if I ever say that GWB and Darth Cheney were working for America or doing anything to benefit American citizens, you have my express permission to place your foot repeatedly on my backside with force.
But our troops are still there, Gitmo is still there, instead of fixing whats wrong they went off on their own quest. Still the same lack of regulations, the same lack of laws or enforcement.....and for example....Attacking and trying to exclude Fox from the pool tells you a lot about this Whitehouse and how they think. What their values are.
I don't frankly see much difference between the two except that this administration seems to be extending and exacerbating the policies of the last eight years.
And I have never heard the Speaker of the House call others un-American for opposing their policies and views till now. Along with all the other trash talking by the leaders of this Congress.
Nor the stated purpose by the leader of the Senate to violate the Constitution straight out for political gain. Its been done of course, but not like this.
"Not even Bush and the one I believe is the most evil person ever in power in our country...Cheney, ever tried to do things like this group. "
Specifically, what has the Obama administration done that is worse than any of the sins of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld triumverate?
As for Fox News, excluding them is the most reasonable thing that Obama has done. Fox has abandoned all pretense of journalistic objectivity. Virtually everything coming out of the mouths of Hannity, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh is a lie. They will attack and ridicule Obama regardless of what he does. There is no relationship whatsoever between Fox News and the truth.
q
While I can agree on Fox news, I will never agree that the WH should have tghe power to decide who will be allowed to cover them. Not even Cheney was that arrogant. Aside from which its a stupid policy.
"Virtually everything coming out of the mouths of Hannity, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh is a lie."
Once again we can agree, but these guys are not Fox news any more than Lou Dobbs is CNN news. In any case it is not their right to pick and choose who covers them. Now if Obama doesn't choose to go on Fox, or the WH refuses to favor them with tidbits, thats their right.
Censorship is censorship, no matter who does it, just as a lie is a lie. I have seen every network/Cable outlet bend things to suit their viewpoint. Frankly not going on Fox and attacking them is one of the most counterproductive political strategies I've seen. It makes them look important.
"Specifically, what has the Obama administration done that is worse than any of the sins of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld triumverate?"
They have followed thir own agenda just as GWB/DC did, except that their job was to fix what those guys tore up. You know just as well as I do what they haven't done that they should have....and what they have done that they shouldn't have....but I'll be glad to list them....the list keeps growing!
Example....Stimulus bill
Omnibus bill
Budget bill
Not done example....restore laws and regulations
restore job's by changing tax and trade policies
rebuild and resttopre infrastructure
get our kids out of these wars
keep promises
But every complaint that you have against Obama can be attributed to Bush and Cheney as well.
Yes, Hannity, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh ARE Fox News because the so-called "news" programs on Fox follow through with the same "points of view" (read "propaganda") expressed by those three corporatist tools.
q
"But every complaint that you have against Obama can be attributed to Bush and Cheney as well."
Exactly my point!! And thats why they are worse than the aforementioned fools.
"Yes, Hannity, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh ARE Fox News because the so-called "news" programs on Fox follow through with the same "points of view" (read "propaganda") expressed by those three corporatist tools."
Still the same to me, I hear propaganda from all media outlets, Ok. Ok Fox is worse...you got me there.....but censorship is still censorship from any point of view and is anathema to freedom.
By the way....this should prove that not all Marine officers are stupid (lol)
"Matthew Hoh, the senior U.S. civilian in Afghanistan's Zabul province, resigned in protest because he believes the American effort there is simply fueling the insurgency, Hoh, a former Marine Corps captain who also served in Iraq,
He is correct.
Nader cost Gore III the election and gave us Shrub!
a. 6 million Democrats voted for Bush... 2 million for Nader...the Democrats put Bush in the White House.
b. There were 14 candidates for President on the Florida ballot (my state!) any one of the 14 got enough votes to have swung the election for Gore as would have a recount in the state.
c. With Libberman as Democrat VP in 2000 and being anti-Zionist I still wouldn't have voted for Gore as a registered Green Party member!
I grow tired of the stupid statements that Nader cost Gore the election. Using your logic the same can be said that Gore cost Nader the election!
Lesser of two evils vs. the candidate that matches ALL of my political views! I will always vote for the best and not the lesser!
The Florida election was stolen in 2000.
q
Wow, the Goretrolls are back and as dumb as ever! I suppose if it hasn't sunk in yet it's a waste of time to point out, oh... 1) Gore didn't lose, the election was stolen, 2) Gore ran a for-sh-t campaign anyway, 3) The belief that Gore would've been substantively different than Bush should not have survived the massive Obama sell-out you're watching right now. And, of course, that Nader had every right to run, just as I had every right to vote for him. Simpletons clinging to your myths would be telling us today, if Obama had lost and McLame had become the president, that our votes for Nader were the reason we're still in 2 illegal, pointless land wars in Asia against people who never did anything to us (and starting a third, maybe a fourth), that financial criminals from Goldman-Sachs and the Fed still run our money supply, and that we have no one advocating for a sane Health Care system. Only problem, and I'll say this slowly, using small words so I don't lose you... Obama DID win and all those things are still true! If you want to vote for sell-outs like Gore and Obama who will NEVER deliver change, feel free to spin your wheels futilely until the sun explodes.
"1) Gore didn't lose, the election was stolen, 2) Gore ran a for-sh-t campaign anyway, 3) The belief that Gore would've been substantively different than Bush should not have survived the massive Obama sell-out you're watching right now."
Good points!
"Wow, the Goretrolls are back and as dumb as ever!" -- ABSOLUTELY.
Will they ever change? Never. The Kool-Aid tastes great and looking in the mirror for their failures is too hard.
Hey GoreTrolls -- for the millionth time or so:
(1) Gore didn't lose. The election was stolen. Gore ran the stupidest campaign in history and then quit rather than fight.
(2) 10 percent of Florida Democrats voted for Bush.
And here's something that your tiny, logic-impaired brain will not be able to wrap around:
I, like 10's of 1000's of my fellow Americans, worked day after day signing up citizens who were not going to vote in 2000. We added, conservatively, a million-and-a-half new voters -- virtually all of whom were going to vote for Ralph.
Six weeks before the election, Ralph was polling well over 5 percent nationally and in some areas 20 percent. Then the Democrats went on their "Sky is Falling" campaign, guilt-tripping Nader-backers into switching and it worked. Nader ended with about 2.5 percent of the vote.
GUESS WHO GOT THOSE VOTES, DemToads? Nader deserters put Gore over the top in Wisconsin, New Mexico and Oregon and made it close enough for Bush to steal Florida.
I despise you traitors. Your cowardice took away the one chance in my lifetime for a viable 3rd Party movement. Keep stroking yourselves with your "Nader Cost Gore the Election" salve and kiss my a**.
Well said. May we never forget that Gore chose Lieberman (the self-promoting turncoat who was too right-wing even to remain in the Democratic Party!) as his V.P. running mate. And, the party stupidly trashed one of our country's greatest men, Ralph Nader.
In spite of that Gore would still have become president. But, Bush's crooked brother fixed the vote in Florida, and the crooked U.S. Supreme Court stopped the recount.
And Obama cost those on the left "change we can believe in" and gave us Shrub-part II, instead. The more things change, the more they stay the same.