Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why Say Yes to the Party of No?
How does the Big Business-indentured Republican Party get away with
expectations of a runaway election victory this November? If such a
victory should occur in Congress and for many governorships and state
legislatures, it will be due to a ten percent or so shift in voters who
voted Democratic in 2008 and are expected to vote Republican this year
or stay home in despair or disgust. The rest of the voters who do vote
will still stay with their hereditary Republican or Democratic
candidates.
So what is accounting for a possible ten percent shift? Let’s briefly
review some of the Congressional Republicans’ voiced positions:
1. They want to do nothing about unfair Chinese trade practices that
lure jobs away from our country though huge factory subsidies, and where
workers are repressed and counterfeit products abound. Imagine,
Republicans coddling a communist regime, luring the auto parts,
electronic, solar and drug ingredients industries away from America,
often in violation of the World Trade Organization rules. And, in turn,
China is exporting to the U.S. impure food, faulty tires, toxic drywall,
lead-tainted toys and medicines which are contaminated, defective or
harmful. Don’t forget the dumping violations.
2. Republicans, led by Senator Richard Shelby and his banking friends,
declared their adamant opposition to Professor Elizabeth Warren becoming
head of the new consumer financial regulation agency. (To avoid a
confrontation with them, President Obama made her a special assistant to
organize this consumer watchdog.) Ms. Warren has a solid record of
exposing and communicating clearly to families the tricks and traps of
credit card companies, mortgage firms, and intermediaries that have
taken so many billions of consumer dollars with impunity.
3. The Republicans led by their House leader, John Boehner (Rep. Ohio), a
total toady of the gouging student loan companies, opposed the
Democrats successful reform of this taxpayer boondoggle that guaranteed
obscene profits and had the taxpayers absorb any student defaults.
Boehner’s lobbying should upset millions of parents who had to foot the
bill for so many years.
4. The Republicans are opposed to raising the federal minimum wage to
what it was, adjusted for inflation, in 1968!! They opposed an adequate
budget for health and safety enforcement by OSHA to diminish the 58,000
American workers who die every year from workplace toxics and trauma.
They are now blocking protections for coal miners pending in the Senate
after the Massey mine disaster.
5. Republicans oppose doing anything about “too big to fail” even after
Wall Street’s reckless, avaricious collapse of the economy, costing 8
million jobs and trillions of lost pension and mutual fund dollars.
Moreover, they do not support genuine enforcement of the anti-trust laws
which are supposed to break up monopolization efforts, monopolies or
oligopolies like Monsanto (seeds) or the big five banks—bailed out by
taxpayers and secure in their domination of well over 50 percent of all
bank assets, deposits and the credit card business. This is by far the
highest concentration of financial power in modern U.S. history. With
few exceptions, the GOP want very few federal cops on the corporate
crime beat.
6. Fighting for the last billionaire and multimillionaire, Republicans
are blocking ending Bush’s tax cuts on incomes beyond $250,000 per year.
Yes, Republicans want to reduce the deficit yet they want to end
revenues of over 700 billion dollar over ten years of restored
super-rich taxes. They are blocking renewal of the estate taxes after
their expiration on Dec. 31, 2009 left no taxes this year on the estates
of the super-rich. (Over 99 percent of estates were already exempt from
the federal estate tax.)
7. No matter that Republicans caved to the health insurance companies
getting over 30 million new covered customers, starting in 2014, they
supported the industry’s blaming the federal government, no less, for
this month’s latest sharp hike in insurance premiums by Aetna and others
largely on the policies of individuals and small business. The
Republicans did this after blocking the “public option” that would have
given consumers both a choice and the benefit of some competition to the
big insurance firms.
8. Have the Congressional Republicans ever challenged the bloated,
wasteful, contractor-corrupt military budget that makes up half of the
entire government’s discretionary budget?
Even the Congress’s own auditing agency—the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) declares the Pentagon budget unauditable. Many Pentagon
audits document the abuses of Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater and other
firms in the deficit-driving, bloody Iraq and Afghanistan wars (both
Republican espoused.) The Pentagon’s burgeoning budget, now nearing $800
billion a year, is deemed untouchable. (A few Republicans, like Charles
Grassley and John McCain sometimes object to contracting abuses.)
9. President Obama wants a counter-recessionary public works program
renovating airports, bridges, highways, rail and mass transit, drinking
water and sewage treatment facilities and other infrastructures.
Republicans sneer at this local job creation for much needed facilities.
10. Unlike any Republican Party since its creation in 1854, it has
misused the filibuster threat, and any one of its Senators misuse the
rules and block even going to a floor discussion or a nomination vote.
The Party is earning its moniker as the Party of NO. Republicans have
turned the U.S. Senate into America’s graveyard.
There is much more, but enough has been cited to ask again—how are
Republicans seen by the polls as front runners in the upcoming election?
The answer my friends, is not in the stars. The answer is in the
clueless and spineless Democrats, busily dialing for the same corporate
campaign dollars.
The other answer is in the ten percent of the actual voters who need to
seriously avail themselves of the facts and a modicum of thought. For if
they don’t, they will continue to pay bills handed to them and their
children by their ruling corporatists in Republican clothing.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


415 Comments so far
Show All& our choice is to do what? If we vote for the other wing of what you Ralph have named it the MONEY Party what will change? The GOP wants to privatize ( AKA loot) the SSI and Medicare programs and the Dims. want to cut them. Some choice we have here. At the same time the Gopers want more tax cuts for their base the top 2% and the Dims. will go along because in reality theats also their base.
A good analogy for our current two party system is a dairy department at a grocery store that only sells two brands of milk. One is sour, and the other is really sour. The two distributors of the two brands of milk have things set up so that no other brands are allowed to be sold nationwide. This means you only have these two choices, no matter where you go, and that's it.
So you go in and buy a quart of Democratic milk, you get home drink it and it's sour, so you throw it out. The next day you go back to the store and you buy some Republican milk. You get home, drink that one and it is even more sour than the Democratic milk was, so you throw it out.
The next day you figure, well maybe I just got a bad batch of Democratic milk so you try it again. You get home and it's sour, AGAIN. The next day you give Republican milk a try again, and its even more sour than the Democratic milk was, AGAIN.
Now even though both milks suck, they have very unique packaging. Some people REALLY like the Democratic milk carton with the promises of quality milk inside, so they keep buying it hoping it will get better, but it doesn't. Same for the Republican milk carton. Different promises on the carton that appeal to different people, but still lousy milk inside.
Now the question is, how many times do you think a person would have to do this little exercise before they figured out that neither brand of milk was any good, and neither was getting any better? Turns out that most people figured this out and just gave up drinking either milk, altogether.
And that is where the saying came from that; "There is no sense in crying over spilt milk." ;-)
Happy Friday everyone!
I love it!
Brilliant and apt!
Beau-ti-ful.
NC-Tom-- Whey to go!
Ouch!
Its a good analogy, but my own experience has led me to believe that the Republican milk is actually enjoyed by a goodly portion of the population, which puzzles me no end. I can only assume that the packaging advertises it as the particular sour-ness that braces one for later success: 'this sour has Vitamins!'
Its all a lie, of course. You give up the taste of sweet for your whole life, and in the end can only offer the sour to your children (its better than admitting you wasted your taste buds).
It also explains why DNC sour is held in such contempt by Republicans ('thats not sour enough! It can't have the same number of Vitamins! How can I expect to grow on such thin gruel.')
I'll admit that DNC milk is neither sweet nor sour: its a formless substance that pretends to be sweet to liberals and sour to conservatives. I think the greater task for liberals is to convince society that sour is a stupid way to go through life. And I think that one way to do this is simply to lead by example. Lead a sweet life, and don't get distracted from it. Its a great life, if you embrace it as such. Nothing irritates conservatives more than to see you happy, but the irritation of conservatives should be your central task. Conservatives are only happy when other people are miserable. Liberals ought to ignore them and seek happiness for themselves. Especially in present circumstances, this takes real personal leadership. Capture yourself, and you'll capture the liberals beside you. Together, you'll capture the DNC, leaving the conservatives to curdle in their own bile.
I voted for Obama with no enthusiasm in 08. It was "sour". I remember someone
saying: "It's time to judge a man (earlier date!) by the content of his
character, not the color of his skin." (Martin Luther King,Jr.)
I did not ever expect to "get it all". I am too long in the political tooth.
But with my anti-zionist (not "anti-semitic") views, my opposition to the the "business will take care of you, we are your friends" approach, with the hypocrasy again and again in foreign affairs, the jubilant slaughter in Afghanistan and Pakistan and on and on...how can I awared this salesman (Obama) with another vote? Or his party? I have only my vote, my single vote for which I am responsible.
I shall not reward the (Israeli) terrorists, the colonizers, the racists, the violent destroyers...
For sources see among others; William M.Johnston, THE AUSTRIAN MIND especially
pp. 357 and conclusion and Gabriel Kolko, THE WORLD IN CRISIS (2009) especially
cahpter on Israel.
Tom, your comments are absolutely inspired and certainly something we can relate to in this political climate!! I'm wondering if you have it posted other places? i.e.Facebook? True true SO true!! At this point is there an answer short of total destruction of the country I wonder??
Nadir has completely lost his mind to spout such nonsensicle drivel as:
"...how are Republicans seen by the polls as front runners in the upcoming election?
The answer my friends, is not in the stars. The answer is in the clueless and spineless Democrats, busily dialing for the same corporate campaign dollars".
The Democrats are neither "clueless nor spineless" - they are staunch defenders of fascist Corporatism and will do whatever is need to whore themselves in its service.
Ralph knows this - as he has stated such many times in the past. Now he seems rather Alzheimeric in his assertion that the Dems just don't get it (clueless & spineless). Of course they GET IT! Buy playing their dutyful role of the "hapless innocents" they garner pity and support - which was EXACTLY the game plan all along.
This may be the absolute worse commentary by Nadir that I can remember. His unmitigated pandering seems to be from someone who has utterly given up on alternative solutions and has embraced the 'Lessor of two Evils' he has continuosly railed against.
Where the fuck are we as a nation if even Nadir has tossed in the towel of lessor Evilism?
My thoughts exactly. He gives the same argument I heard when I did NOT vote Nadir in 2004, which in hindsight was a mistake. Sorry, Ralph, not going there again.
I think Nader, at worst, threw the dems a bone with this one, since they're so pathetic, or at best, he's just having a laugh.
Thank you, moonpie. That's the way I will choose to look at it. You're OK again, Ralph.
dtw
Sometimes it's interesting watching contortionists at work.
Or one blown hither and yon by every political breeze mayhaps?
My goodness, that reading comprehension thingie is sometimes so difficult. Perhaps because of its insertion at the end of Ralph's article you missed it. So here it is again, alone:
"There is much more, but enough has been cited to ask again—how are Republicans seen by the polls as front runners in the upcoming election?
The answer my friends, is not in the stars. The answer is in the clueless and spineless Democrats, busily dialing for the same corporate campaign dollars. "
Speaking of Nadir, your post qualifies to be defined as such, sorry to have to note.
Oh, and its Nader by the by, you ain't as clever as you believe, thinking that misspelling is high political theater.....Why do you believe that any article that fails to measure up to your own personal standards of political purity is deserving of such unsophisticated assumptions? Nader measures the GOP and does so with accuracy and acumen. He has posted reams on the failures of the Democrats in the past you fail to consider.
Oh, and the reason, one of them at least, why all expect a GOP runaway is twofold; One,the midterms always favor the minority party , and two, see Ralph's two sentences above.
Mr. Nader listed it out, point by point. Go ahead, ignore the first 90% of his statement. I think it's kinda funny how it's "sometimes so difficult."
Now I must assume you to be intractably attached to your wrongheadedness. I have no time for your childishness...Bye now.
In number 1 he seems to blame NAFTA on China, and ignores the fact that the USA and its states also do plenty of subsidizing i.e. destroying Mexican and African economies with Corn and Cotton.
"our choice is to do what?"
My choice twice has been for 3rd party candidate, Ralph Nader, and I have never had a single regret..
Uh-oh. Nader will now be flamed by most CD bloggers because he apparently believes there actually IS still some difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.
E.g., "President Obama wants a counter-recessionary public works program renovating airports, bridges, highways, rail and mass transit, drinking water and sewage treatment facilities and other infrastructures. Republicans sneer at this local job creation for much needed facilities."
Gulp. A quote like the one above from anybody but Nader would unleash an avalanche of fury on this site, so I'm curious to see whether Ralph gets the same treatment ... has he, too, been brainwashed by the corporate media to believe that there's actually more than an 'iota' of difference between Obama and the Republicans?
This is gonna be fun to watch.
Yes, I'm watching too. There is quite a gaggle of far left idealists here who live in a sort of hypnosis, seemingly never really grasping any kind of logical outcomes.
As if GW Bush and Cheney weren't far worse rapist than Obama.
No we wouldn't be this bad off had the election gone to Gore in 2000 but ah we let the repukes steal it and viola, a crashed economy, true imbeciles supporting wars as if we had to go into them, etc.
The dems are bought but not nearly as bad as the repukes.
Ralph does say:
"The answer my friends, is not in the stars. The answer is in the clueless and spineless Democrats, busily dialing for the same corporate campaign dollars."
But that won't be enough to save him here on the CD comment page.
The 2000 coup was as powerful as any other right wing political coup in America
which came out into the open in 1963. We've had 50 years and more of this
right wing political violence, still unacknowledged by our corporate-press.
"The myth of a free press died with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy."
Would Gore and the right wing religiously fanatical Joe Lieberman -- a GOP
Trojan Horse -- really have been any different?
.
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
We would at least have had intelligent leadership. It would not have been Utopia, but it would have been a damn site better.
Really . . . and you would have been one gun shot away from rule by
Joe Lieberman -- !!
Keep in mind Gore was also supported most of his political career by
one of the oil companies. Gore also gave the "nod" to Clinton to end
60 years of Welfare Guarantees! While Gore eventually regretted it, he
played the DLC/corporate game in 2000 and shunned populist rhetoric for
them. Gore and Clinton were one of many co-founders of the DLC.
Did Gore not know who Lieberman actually was? Right winger and religious
fanatic?
Lots of ego involved in all of this -- exactly what Gore regrets is hard
to say, except obviously that he lost.
We are being given the candidates TPB want us to vote for -- and if we still
get it wrong, they have the computers to switch things around with.
And they have the MSM with their large computers helping them along.
MSM used to only be able to report ACTUAL vote tallies -- now they have new
powers to PREDICT and CALL elections and winners/losers -- ELECTORAL COLLEGE
VOTES. In 2000, we merely saw those new powers reversed.
All of this with the large and small computers began to come in during the mid-
and-late 1960's --- coincidentally, just about the time that America was passing
The Voting Rights Act!
I'd question every election back to Nixon/Humphrey -- another squeaker.
.
.
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
Where is Mr. Environment these days? I have not heard a peep out of Gore with all the fracking, mountaintop removal, Obama's plans to ramp up a nuke facility in GA and the BP oil "spill" going on....
Where is he? He's very quiet these days.
Algore supports the "clean coal" and "safe nuclear" propaganda. One day he pretends not to but on most other days he will.
"Would Gore and the right wing religiously fanatical Joe Lieberman...."
Exactly.
Gore would be in Arlington cemetery right now pushing up daisies. And his documentary would never had been made--at least by him, anyway.
Nader had nothing to do with that pair of losers losing anyway. They just sucked as candidates.
Sorry, I'll take the e-vil Cheney over the much e-viler Lieberman. President Gore would be dead by now.
That this man was on the democratic presidential ticket tells a lot.
So you would rather be raped by someone gentle rather than not be raped at all?
Do you really think Gore wouldn't have fu**ed things up just as badly, that we wouldn't be entrenched in the middle east? Different playbook, same game.
Vote outside the box!
The answer to your question is NO...go read some facts about how much the bush minions wanted to invade Iraq...read the PNAC...
Would Gore have stood up to Israel (as we so desparately need!)...probably not...but would he have invaded Afganistan and Iraq...NO
Nadar himself was one of the first to say, after bush, cheney et all really got going that perhaps there was a real difference in the two parties and there is...if the difference isn't great enough for you, then get off your butt and make things change...
There is no difference. But hey, if it gets you off thinking so, go for it.
But, as conscience pointed out, you're forgetting about Lieberman--a far more sinister fiend than Cheney; and Gore had already shown his chops as a poodle--throw him a few ecology bones (carbon swaps, etc) and he'd roll over and play dead (rather than be assassinated). Military dominance in the middle east is a corporate goal, not a political one (as evidenced by the number of political "suicides" we've seen. It's the MIC, stupid (sorry about the ad hominem attack). Different playbook, same game.
Vote outside the box.
Greg,
Well you know what they say..everyone is entitled to their opinions and I guess in this case Mr. Nader's opinions are not what many folks would wish to hear at this time....
One can go from being a hero to a bum very rapidly on this site..lol. But really..Mr. Nader simply presented the facts. I am sure he does not want to be the poster boy for the vote anybody but democrat crowd....( Or the don't vote at all crowd) The Mr. Nader of my experience could never be so negligent as to advocate such national irresponsibility.
As our friend Rich pointed out in his above comment Mr. Nader is not and never was a left wing radical..
Thomas Gilbert
I LOVE Ralph Nader -- but there's no real advice in this bit of writing.
Look, as much as Ralph Nader has watched corporatism/fascism grow in America
over 40 years or more -- I think he's in as much "shock and awe" as any of
us in a way.
Nader really doesn't want to say "don't vote for Democrats" because he's as
concerned as most of us are that whomever the Democrats are, the Republicans
are even more psychopathic -- every day, steadily more so!
The only way the right wing can rise is through political violence -- we've
had 50 plus years of that out-in-the-open rw violence. They assassinated our
leaders and stolen our "people's" government.
Certainly, I don't see any argument here from anyone that they should be in
charge of anything but a new fourth reich.
So -- the question is Democrat, third party -- or not voting.
While I agree we've had stolen elections, I still don't see not voiting.
OK -- third party or Democrats --
Well, if we vote THIRD PARTY we're sure not going to hit and knock out any
Republicans ... will we?
In fact, we may be enabling Republicans if we vote third party?
Of course, that depends on what state you're in --
But -- I'm going to go with KNOCK OUT AS MANY REPUBLICANS AS POSSIBLE --
And hope everyone here will think about it --
and also let us know what they're plans are!
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
We can't, if we have any intelligence at all and want fresh milk (as discussed by NC-Tom above)vote for either major corporate party. We have to change our registration from D or R to third party and vote for only third party or independent candidates. This voting change will take years to show results. If you live in a Congressional District that is majority Democrat - that Democrat will win (no fear of the greater evil). Same for Republican districts. Gerrymandering has made this a fact. Only by cutting down on the votes these shoe-ins get can we open up space for any new parties.
Since that person in Congress now will be there into the future, we must put the heat on that person to heed the advice of the constituents. You can form a group of constituents in your district to pelt your (so called) Representative each month with your advice on how you want her/him to vote IN YOUR NAME. It's not going to show results right a way; but we have to persist. There is some chance it will work if voters change registration out of the corporate parties. It might scare the
'Representative' since nothing is more important to them than to keep that cushy and profitable job.
Hey, it beats violence in the streets and is worth a try. Organize in your Congressional district and keep in the face of your 'Representative'. What ever you do---don't vote for a D or an R. Neither is lesser evil than the other.
There already is plenty of violence in the streets around here..most homes are empty, gunshots are heard every weekend night. You guys in the suburbs just dont understand the violence of poverty.
\
One good bout of street violence won many lives in Cochabamba and Venezuelia..the French are fighting in the streets for what they paid for, as we speak.time for cowardly USANs to get off their asses.
If you love Nader, as you state, then it needs to be pointed out that your post besmirches what he has stood for all this time. Spreading the myth that voting Dem is better than voting GOP is to vote for the continued domination of the corporate rule that is sinking our nation. It makes little damn difference which of the two parties is currently in power, and the last two years should have made that crystal clear to all of us.
I think Ralph Nader sees the same picture that most of us here are looking at, and it ain't pretty. Spineless as many Dems might be, they're the only viable alternative. All the reasonable Repub politicians and spokes people have already left the party since Bush's advent.
So, you are right about trying to unseat as many Repubs as possible. I think Nader has come to the same conclusion about accepting the lesser of two evils because we're at the bottom, with many working-class people unemployed and hanging on by a hair, and can't take much more without total collapse.
In the meantime, there is a long-term solution to this quandry, and it is long term and it requires people mobilizing locally, in the absence of a national law to this effect. It involves introducing public finance of candidates as an option where those who want to run for office but do not wish to be financed or owned by corporations are able to do so. There is an organization, which I have previously mentioned on this site, called "Public Finance Campaign Fund" headed by Nick Nyhart whose mission is helping local groups set up such a public finance system, but it has to be organized and run locally. The Fund gives them different kinds of advice and help organizing. They have recently run an ad campaign with republican & democratic citizens talking about their dire condition and need for a more responsive govt--obviously getting corporations out of the govt. bus. is the biggest challenge but possible thru public campaign finance option.
Also, a couple of days ago, I attended a hearing on the Hill for H.R. 6116 whose objective is precisely passing a public finance option. Each and everyone of you should contact his/her Representatives and ask them to vote to bring it to the floor of the House and urge them to pass it. Also, get the info out to family and friends and ask them to do likewise. The longest journey starts with the first step. So, please take that first step.
It would be redundant to say that most likely all the Repubs on the Committee voted no and the Dems yes. Now, it must go to the Floor and must be done before the midterm elections for obvious reasons. We can make a difference if we take action.
I believe, as a Nader voter in three elections, that you find the idea that Nader supports the Democratic Party in your own ideology rather than within his article. Just as this article is a scathing critique of the GOP so have many, many such works of his given equal or even larger crticisms of the Democrats.
To support the Democratic Party without a plan to excise its ties to corporate fundings and its refusal to end the Bush administrations third term is no plan at all. our nation, and our world as well, deserves far better than you offer.
"without a plan to excise its ties to corporate fundings"
excellent point that hits one of the nails squarely on the head...if there were ever a simple solution to a mind boggling problem, this is it...remove all donations from campaigns...allow no opportunity for any representative to be bought and paid for...
What would you consider an alternative to be?
doubledee:
So, you voted for Nader 3 times, and that makes you what? What are you offering besides pontifications. You must really have a cushy life. If you knew people who are out of work and are in fear how they're going to meet next week if not tomorrow, you might come down to earth. That might have been the plan all along to make people more pliant, but what are you doing about it?
I am very well aware that the Dems. are beholden to corporate money with all that entails, but there is still a modicum of conscience at times, such as initiating the public works projects Nader mentions.
Anyone who has assessed the situation would know that the crux of our problems is corporate control of our govt. What I'm offering is not earth shaking, but it's a start. In any case, I think the House is offering it, not me. What are you offering besides palaver and a holier than thou attitude. If your response is revolution, then let's see you take the helm and be its leader.
HR 6116, seeking to pass into law public campaign financing, is a step in the right direction, and people should do all they can to help pass it: call their Reps and tell others.
Again, I missed your solutions, please don't be shy and put them forth. Also, read the comments of other earth dwellers.
You assume my economic position in order to make a halting and rather lame point, one that frankly escaped me. Care to try again without the crocodile tears?
That you assume that the current system will be reformed by the very same fat cats who currently wallow within it, enjoying the privilege and the aristocratic life style it fosters seems rather silly. As well as historically incorrect.
Lastly, I voted for Nader because I thought him the most coherent, his platform one I could wholeheartedly support and because my vote was a protest against the duopoly party that presently rules America. You, apparently, prefer blindly voting, again and again, for the same folks who let you down the last term. And you criticize me?
No, frankly I don't "Care to try again." And I wish they were "crocodile tears." It is very difficult to have people close to one struggling to survive without being affected in many ways. And if you or your spouse are among those sending out hundreds of resumes to find something to cover costs, I hope something positive comes thru for you soon.
Mr. Nader is everything you say he is and more, but unfortunately, the populace, to its detriment, did not elect him. However, that is neither here nor there for we are facing what we are facing.
My initial post was about several things: The fact that Nader, the man himself, realizes the possibility as many headlines have been suggesting that the Repubs might get the majority in the House which would be totally foolhardy at this point of high unemployment and dire conditions. Thus the title of his article "Why Say Yes to the No Party." In that case, there would be no chance whatsoever that Obama would be able to initiate a much-needed public works program. Hopefuly, he will have the votes, and he will do it. This is where we are.
My second objective was to inform people about an org. "Public Campaign Finance Fund" whose mission is to help local initiatives to institute a way to publicly support candidates who do not want corporate financing. It has been accomplished in some locales. It is long term and does require local inititiative. However, if enough localities institute it, they can gradually replace the deadwood with vibrant people who are honest and care about the common good.
Even more importantly, I wanted people to be aware that there is a bill presently considered, HR 6116, and if passed will make public financing of campaigns a national option for everyone. People need to get in touch with their Representatives and ask them to bring it to Committee and to the Floor, or however it works, and to support it. Here is the FB post, and they're also on Twitter. (It didn't quite copy entirely, but there's enough for people to follow thru either on FB or Twitter):
-----------
Public Campaign Action Fund We've started a petition on Twitter to urge Speaker Pelosi to give us a floor vote on Fair Elections. If you have a Twitter account, sign the petition today!
Speaker Nancy Pelosi: Give #FairElections a vote on the floor!
act.ly
The Fair Elections Now Act passed out of committee on September 23rd. Urge Speaker Pelosi to give us
-------------
Anyone who has viable alternatives and suggestions should post them. We're all in this together. Personally, I have nothing further to say.
I am glad to note that, despite saying you wont try again you do..A much better second effort I believe.
As to:
"the Repubs might get the majority in the House which would be totally foolhardy at this point of high unemployment and dire conditions. Thus the title of his article "Why Say Yes to the No Party." In that case, there would be no chance whatsoever that Obama would be able to initiate a much-needed public works program. Hopefuly, he will have the votes, and he will do it. This is where we are."
I have to say that I now state a rather unpopular viewpoint but one history seems to validate; I see little difference in the election of a GOP majority from the current Democratic one. You still believe in Hope and change after two years of nonsense , incompetence and nothing much accomplished, I do not. He, Obama, had the damn votes and failed miserably to use them. His majority party is as much the party of 'no' as is the Republican Party. Obama has carried out the Bush agenda for two years and still you believe that yet another two years will find us in paradise.
On a more positive note I thank you for your efforts to rid campaigns of corporate funding, doing something beats doing nothing. I vote for Greens as they refuse said funding. But I think that the real work is not to provide funds for those who reject 'the ties that blind' and deafen too apparently. The candidate who refuses corporate funding will be buried by those who can raise millions more than local funding can possibly provide. Look at California where Whitman has spent almost one hundred million of her own money, and Brown is still neck and neck...go Governor Moonbeam!
No, I believe the real solution lies in free elections, free print space, free media and plenty of debates. Only when all legitimate candidates have the same access to the public, when they have no need to raise three quarters of a billion dollars to buy an office paying $400,000/yr for four years will our politicians be truly free of corporate strings. Do you really believe Obama would have sunk single payer if he weren't under the obligation to keep insurance company money flowing to his coffers and to his party?
"Do you really believe Obama would have sunk single payer if he weren't under the obligation to keep insurance company money flowing to his coffers and to his party?"
Who placed him under such an "obligation"? Why did he feel so "obliged"? What was it that led to his decision to choose party over people/principle? Personal ambition? If not, what other motivation? Remember, he made these choices, e.g. re single payer, BEFORE he was elected ....
Why the money of course, how could you not understand that. Both parties, elephant and donkey are giant cash machines the true purpose of which is not governing but filling chests with money. In return they assure the corporation of free reign over our economy, our resources, our air and water etc. Thus it matters not which party assumes power, one the one hand the elephant arrogantly robs us, and on the other, the donkey dithers and frets, makes contradictory statements and excuses by the truckload, and then robs us.
As to Obama's consistency on the issue of single payer ,allow me to turn to one who I detest, Mr Breitbart, as his video enlightens:
http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-in-03-id-like-to-see-a-single-payer-health-care-plan/