#88586 by Expat on 7/21 at 8:24 pm
(59 comments total)

#88386 by ardee on 7/20 at 6:26 pm
(311 comments total)

Yes, like you, I’m at a loss to understand these vicious attacks on Nader.  I have followed him from the 60’s when he trashed the Chevy Corvair as “Unsafe at Any Speed”.

The policy of personal destruction as used by Rove to such effect has spread to all corners of political debate. When one is faced with a message impossible or at least difficult to refute one simply smears the messenger…..

This is not at all limited to the neocons, and I admit readily to having used such against certain incorrigible posters even here, racists and such. Perhaps it is our deteriorated educational system that doesnt allow folks to learn how to fact find, use a search engine ( first you must understand how to phrase the parameters)or give them the patience to see it through and make intelligent deduction based on input.

” Those who are too intelligent to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are not.”...attributed to Plato

“If a man begins in certainty he will end in doubt.” Francis Bacon

one more only, I promise;

“When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule the majority is wrong.”  Eugene v. Debs

#88340 by ardee on 7/20 at 3:04 pm

Ardee: Thanks for this.
Cyrena
Hate to overload, but a fascinating subject…heres some background:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Democracy_America/Be stElections_Money_TDF.html

No overload. I have time for now, so I was able to read this, and appreciate the information. There’s never been any doubt in my mind, that our political system, (and particularly campaign practices) have become totally corrupted by -MONEY-. And, it’s worse now than it was in the past, because of all the brainwashing required via advertising. My own former corporation has ALWAYS contributed to BOTH parties, (though I’ve discovered that they’ve been far more generous to the Repubs when they’ve been in office)
Now, I find that cynically hypocritical, but they just consider it “business as usual”.

So yeah, it’s ugly, but I haven’t figured out a fix.

#88386 by ardee on 7/20 at 6:26 pm
(311 comments total)

Yes, like you, I’m at a loss to understand these vicious attacks on Nader.  I have followed him from the 60’s when he trashed the Chevy Corvair as “Unsafe at Any Speed”.

Meglomaniac?  Egotist? Huh? 

But then I am also at a loss for what we allow today in “our” government

#88364 by Ernest Canning on 7/20 at 4:56 pm

Ernest, much thanks for Amy’s interview. I don’t usually miss her, but I did that day. So, I’ve printed it for my files. I’m pretty much in agreement with Nadar, and I had an “opportunity” to evaluate the campaign finance reform bill a few years ago. (Only because it was a required assignment….what a mess).

So yeah, it’s bad, which is why one needs to be wealthy to declare a candidacy… which is why the best of our leaders are probably never known to us. They remain anonymous.

Still, Nadar didn’t present an entirely true picture of Obama’s campaigning funds, because while I know that he has received backing from the corps, (via individuals-Oprah?), I also know for a fact, that most of his funding IS on the grass roots level, and in small donations. And, while Barack must certainly have made a large portion of his cash from his book(s) sales, he didn’t start out wealthy, or “corporately connected”. (It helps to have Harvard Law money, but one need not be a millionaire to attend.)

Also, at the time that Obama entered politics, he already had a day job teaching Law at De Paul University. (I doubt they pay them as much as they pay politicians) So, he’s simply never had the kind of corporate contacts that come anywhere near the others. He just hasn’t been around long enough. He’s not OLD enough. And THAT had been, at least initially, his main attraction for me. (besides the fact that he was articulate, and very obviously an excellent thinker, but more importantly, an independent thinker, and one capable of utilizing the resources of experts, for the stuff that he needs. (like the team he put together to come up with a universal health care plan).

More than anything, he hasn’t the baggage. Now, I should mention that I read somewhere in a post, that Barack’s wife, Michelle, is or was on the Board for Wal-Mart. If that is true, then I’ll have to swallow my words about corporate connections being slim. 

And, I DID hear him make the same comment that Ralph Nadar was complaining about in the interview. He did want to beef up the military, but I interpreted it differently. I interpreted it as intent to simply try to put it back together again, so that we wouldn’t have our National Guard, and our Reserves, and all of the rest of them, so completely wiped-out. So that we wouldn’t have to continue hiring felons, and high school drop-outs, and have to rely on a private shadow army of contractors that number right now, the same as our troops. At least that was MY interpretation, but that doesn’t mean that I wasn’t somehow reading more intent than was there.

What I know about Kucinich is originally from nearly 4 years ago, when he was considering a run for the White House back then. We didn’t hear much more from him until about a year ago, and so I’ve picked up his thread again. I’m not as impressed as I was then.

Anyway, based on the fact that Obama has in fact done some serious “mobilizing” and because he’s a straight shooter, and not likely to let “fame” go to his head, that’s pretty much who I’m looking at right now. I’m definitely a sucker for his willingness to recognize the rule of law, both domestically and internationally, and his commitment to using that to resolve the disaster that is Iraq. We need to let that system work as it’s been designed, and make sure that ALL of the Middle Eastern states take a part in restoring Iraq, under the guidance of the UN. The neo-cons have so seriously de-legitimized the UN, that they’ve been basically cut-off at the knees for the past several years. Still, I’m sure they can do their jobs, if we allow it.

More than anything, Obama is fully aware that the disaster that is Iraq, wouldn’t be the disaster that it is, if we weren’t there. And, needless to say, if our loved ones weren’t there, (kid, spouse, parent, sibling) they wouldn’t be dying.

But…I like Mike Gravel too!!

I have been reading the utterances of Ralph Nader for years now, many in fact, and I simply fail to understand the knee jerk reactions to him from intelligent folks such as Frank Cajon. If Nader’s speeches were reprinted sans attribution every moderate and leftist would applaud them with unanimity. He speaks the way I remember real democrats speaking in my youth, before the DLC ruined that party ( or maybe they were ruined even earlier by their obsessive need for more and more money, not their fault but they could work to change the damn system).

But Nader remains, to these folks as an egotist, a spoiler, a man who puts his own ahead of the nations…..This guy comes from a solid small town background. His father’s store was the gathering place for liberal thought and Ralph could have joined a major law firm out of school and made megabucks, instead he spearheads consumer protection legislation, and for far, far less dough…but he is perceived so poorly by those who refuse to self examine.

I cannot help but wonder why these folks dont seem to grasp the fact that Nader spoiled nothing, that Democrats would have been a bit less blatant than the GOP but no less damaging in the long run.

ITW, I will accept your post #87929 as a dispassionate and reasoned response to mine.  I also agree that all nations should be judged by the same international standards.  My problem is that I see most of what we see, hear & read within the U.S. corporate media as subjecting a favored status upon Israel and a disfavored status on all things Arab, Palestinian or Persian.  As I noted, the scope of acceptable discourse is far narrower for Americans than it is for Israelis.  Here is an example, excerpts from a 10/17/04 Ha’aretz article, “Killing Children is No Longer a Big Deal” by Gideon Levy.

“More than 30 Palestinian children were killed in the first two weeks of Operation Days of Penitence….It’s no wonder that many people term such wholesale killing of children ‘terror.’  Whereas in the overall count of all victims of the intifada the ratio is three Palestinians killed for every Israeli killed, when it comes to children the ratio is 5:1….According to B’Tselem…even before the current operation in Gaza, 557 Palestinian minors…were killed, compared to 110 Israeli minors.

”...According to B’Tselem…42 of the children who have been killed were 10; 20 were seven; and eight were two years old….The youngest victims are 13 newborn infants who died at checkpoints during births.

“With horrific statistics like this, the question of who is a terrorist should have long since become very burdensome for every Israeli.  Yet it is not on the public agenda.  Child killers are always Palestinians, the soldiers always only defend us and themselves, and the hell with the statistics.

“The plain fact…is that the blood of hundreds of Palestinian children is on our hands.  No tortuous explanations by the IDF…about the dangers posed to soldiers by the children, and no dubious excuse by the public relations people in the Foreign Ministry…will change that fact.  An army that kills so many children is an army with no restraints, an army that has lost its moral code.

”. . . .

“Palestinian children have no refuge: mortal danger lurks for them in their homes, in their schools and on their streets.  Not one of the hundreds of children who have been killed deserved to die, and the responsibility for their killing cannot remain anonymous….

”. . . .

“The public indifference that accompanies this pageant of unrelieved suffering makes all Israelis accomplices to a crime.”

Since Mr. Levy is an Israeli, I suspect it would be a bit difficult for even the most die-hard Zionist to accuse him of anti-Semitism.  But it is equally clear that an article like this would never appear in either the Washington Post or the New York Times.

Ardee & Cyrena, as a follow-up to your excellent posts, consider Amy Goodman’s recent interview of Ralph Nader:

Amy Goodman:  I wanted to ask you about these secret trade deals that are being made behind closed doores between the Democrats and the White House…Rick MacArthur, publisher of Harper’s, said that “Rangel, Pelosi are saying ‘...we’re gearing up for the 2008 election.  We’ve got to raise a lot of money.’  They’re closer to the Clinton wing of the party, which is the pro-so-called-free-trade wing of the party…And this is a way of saying to the corporate community…—Wall Street, Wall Mart—...we’re open for business…”

Ralph Nader:  The corporate Democrats in action again.  Why should we all be surprised?  When you ask Democrats in Congress, “How are you doing against the Republicans in the coming election?”  The first answer is about money.  It’s not about justice.  It’s not about the agenda.  It’s not about mobilizing people.  It’s about dialing for corporate dollars.  These two parties have sold the US government and the American people to the highest bidders.  And that’s why we have a corporate sovereign political economy, and that’s why workers are daily in peril of losing their economic security and their pensions and retirement or their jobs or their health and safety in the workplace.”

During the interview, Nader referred to the “WTO and NAFTA” as “an albatross around the neck of workers, of consumers and of clean environments.”  He noted that they pull “down our standards so our workers have to compete with brutalized child labor in third world countries.”  Nader singled out Dennis Kucinich as a notable exception to this sorry state of affairs.

http://www.democracynow.org/print.pl?sid=07/07/09/131226

A bit more…I actually found a TON of data on DLC dragging the party rightward to pander for the money there…

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020805/borosage20020726

http://www.alternet.org/election04/20774/

D.L.C.: Democrats Love Corporations?

By David Sirota, The Nation. Posted December 17, 2004.

The Democratic Leadership Council’s addiction to contributions from Philip Morris, Texaco, and Merck is proof enough that its “centrism” is really a naked corporate agenda.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles7/Nader_DLC.htm
Looking out over Washington, DC, from his plush office, Al From is once again foaming at the mouth. The CEO of the corporate-sponsored Democratic Leadership Council and his wealthy cronies are in their regular postelection attack mode. Despite wins by economic populists in red states like Colorado and Montana this year, the DLC is claiming like a broken record that progressive policies are hurting the Democratic Party.

From’s group is funded by huge contributions from multinationals like Philip Morris, Texaco, Enron and Merck, which have all, at one point or another, slathered the DLC with cash. Those resources have been used to push a nakedly corporate agenda under the guise of “centrism” while allowing the DLC to parrot GOP criticism of populist Democrats as far-left extremists. Worse, the mainstream media follow suit, characterizing progressive positions on everything from trade to healthcare to taxes as ultra-liberal. As the AP recently claimed, “party liberals argue that the party must energize its base by moving to the left” while “the DLC and other centrist groups argue that the party must court moderates and find a way to compete in the Midwest and South.”

Cyrena
Hate to overload, but a fascinating subject…heres some background:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Democracy_America /BestElections_Money_TDF.html

The Tilt to the Right

Impressive signs of Democratic gains in fundraising lie in the comparisons of contributions to the congressional elections in 1984 and the off-year elections in 1986. In this two-year period, Democratic challengers and candidates for open seat races greatly increased their share of contributions from corporate, trade, and “nonconnected” PACs, while maintaining their near monopoly on labor PACs. Democratic candidates’ share of corporate contributions rose from only 8 percent in 1984 to 28 percent in the 1986 off-year elections. In 1988, their share compared to contributions to Republicans rose to 27 percent.
Despite (or because of) the Democratic gains in fundraising, it is clear that the ideological pendulum did not swing back toward liberalism. The Democrats’ courting of corporate and trade PACs reflected a swing to the right in the congressional wing of the party. As the National Journal pointed out after the 1984 elections, business gave more to the Democrats because “there was a dearth of vulnerable Democratic incumbents with voting records that the business community opposed.” The American Enterprise Institute’s Michael Malbin attributed shifting corporate funding to “congressional Democrats…speaking more about capital formation and other business issues.” Representative Coelho’s attempts to attract corporate money prompted the chair of the PAC funded by Tenneco Inc., the third largest corporate PAC giver in 1984 and fourth largest in 1986, to comment that “the political climate has changed somewhat and is more [supportive of] the private sector.”
Corporate PAC money also helps keep the Democrats listing to the right because it helps more conservative candidates defeat liberals in Democratic primaries. Where liberal Democratic incumbents are relatively secure, corporations use PAC contributions to preserve access to them, as in the case of possible presidential contenders like Senators Ted Kennedy and Joseph Biden. But when liberals are confronted with a viable conservative challenger, they are likely to get short shrift from wealthy individuals and business interests. Liberal Bruce Morrison of Connecticut, for example, was touted by Representative Coelho as worthy of business support, but in the last few weeks of his close but successful 1984 race to retain his seat, he attracted only $7,000 from corporate PACs while his more conservative opponent received $37,000.

Comment#88203 by ardee on 7/20 at 4:56 am

...“Think about the numbers for a moment. Senatorial races cost about ten million dollars minimum. In the last Presidential race both candidates spent in excess of one hundred million each. Do you really believe the bulk of this money comes from anywhere else but special interests?”...

Well Ardee, I didn’t get to check the site yet, (though I will) but this pretty much answers my question. When you said the dems were raking in more money than the repubs, I was thinking in terms of the upcoming elections, and I admit I hadn’t even considered Senatorial candidates. So sure, we can figure that the bulk of the money come from special interest, which is generally corporate in nature. I don’t even have to look at prior elections to know that.

And, even if we WERE only talking about the current presidential candidates, there’s no doubt that some of them are primarily special interest sponsored as well. I think I wanted to just highlight that this was not the case with ALL of them. And, while “special interest” isn’t ALWAYS “corporate”, I certainly accept the reality that it generally does make up the bulk of campaign funding.

Still, I’m seeing some refreshing moves away from that, for the first time in decades. Just hanging on to a little hope I guess.

#88147 by cyrena on 7/19 at 8:37 pm
(419 comments total)

#88009 by ardee on 7/19 at 10:43 am
Ardee, I have just a couple of questions on this:
• By the by, numbers are showing that Democrats are receiving more money than their Republican counterparts, and much of this is corporate in nature. Handwriting on the wall I guess, positioning to be owed favors by the winners…...
I guess I have seen a few of these “numbers” on the campaign monies, but nothing (yet) that provides any clear evidence or connection to “corporate” sources, though I would pretty much expect that from ALL of the republicans, and some of the Democrats. Still, this is sort of “vague” to just put “out there”, as some sort of handwriting on the wall.
..................
Cyrena,
I am posting at work (430 AM, prior to shift start at five) so excuse me for not doing the leg work. If you go to the AAR wbsite, click on the Thom Hartmann page you will find the numbers you seek. I would imagine, and will check after work today, that there are other sources as well.

Think about the numbers for a moment. Senatorial races cost about ten million dollars minimum. In the last Presidential race both candidates spent in excess of one hundred million each. Do you really believe the bulk of this money comes from anywhere else but special interests?

#88009 by ardee on 7/19 at 10:43 am
Ardee, I have just a couple of questions on this:
•  By the by, numbers are showing that Democrats are receiving more money than their Republican counterparts, and much of this is corporate in nature. Handwriting on the wall I guess, positioning to be owed favors by the winners…...
I guess I have seen a few of these “numbers” on the campaign monies, but nothing (yet) that provides any clear evidence or connection to “corporate” sources, though I would pretty much expect that from ALL of the republicans, and some of the Democrats. Still, this is sort of “vague” to just put “out there”, as some sort of handwriting on the wall.

Not everyone of the Democrats is “corporately” supported. A few have gone out of their way to AVOID such tainted money, which is…in part, why some have been able to collect larger than normal sums. They’ve hit up a much larger “audience”, for far more modest contributions. The numbers seem to work in their favor with that sort of “populist” formula.

Meantime, the Republicans have already told all poor Americans, that they DON’T WANT THEM TO VOTE, so if they wanna be a part of the process here, they’re gonna throw their few dollars at the Democrats.

No “corporate nature” there. Just plain old common sense. Maybe it’s finally coming back. That would be good.

Mudwollow: First, I am not saying you should have voted for Gore instead of Nader. You could have voted for George Bush, who may indeed have ‘earned’ your vote, my statement was that many of my political acquaintances share a belief that Nader clearly handed the close 2000 election to Bush. Two days ago, I had another blogger come on here and make the case that Nader’s candidacy in a splinter party didn’t cost the Democrats the 2000 election. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and woulda, shoulda, coulda, but do the math: Nader pulled over 120,000 votes in New Hampshire and Florida alone and Bush won both states by a total of 13,000 votes; sure, make the argument that way more Green party members come from the GOP than the Democrats. Sure.

BTW, I agree with you that with only a couple of noted exceptions there isn’t a ‘dime’s worth of difference’ between the two major parties. I think the Green movement is idealistically admirable. pretend that Ralph Nader ever is going to build a splinter party capable of doing anything beyong creating interesting math, it will be by rewriting the Constitution to permit instant runoff voting, which is similar to what made Aaron Burr kill Hamilton and John Quincy Adams president while polling less than 40% of the popular vote and less than 50% of the electoral college. I have a better, just as likely idea for scrapping the constitution: get rid of the executive branch.
We are staring in the face the very real possibility that Bush/Cheney may decide they like it on top and suspend the 2008 elections on the basis of national security, especially if there is any terrorist activity next year. Sound paranoid? This is reality, and I work with patients with real paranoia and know the difference. There are plans in place to put FEMA and Blackwater in charge of large US cities on executive order, anyone can be arrested without charges or arraignment if declared an enemy combatant, and Bush/Cheney have weeded out any high military officers who aren’t with their program. There is a new layer of Homeland Security secret police intended to prevent terrorists from attacking us, who Bush/Cheny have coopted to eavesdrop and wiretap on nearly anyone they feel the inclination to without warrants. I am not convinced that Bush is mentally stable enough to realize that he will have to step down from office. If he actually does, my hope is that this near miss with dictatorship will startle Americans into realizing they have two options: a new, different political representation by a completely rebuilt party in Washington-one that can draw enough votes to defeat the GOP status quo-or a much less likely, but hopefully eventual movement to reduce the powers of the president and executive branch, with an ultimate goal of a legislative democracy, with a prime minister, multi-party system, only Congress having the power to declare war or hostile actions, and the Supreme Court elected by the people and representing their interests and views.

mudwollow, so long as the Dems & Repugs are in control, instant run off voting is a pipe dream.  Nader would have been far more effective if he had chosen to help recapture the people’s party, the Democratic Party, from the corporatist charletons of the DLC who have coopted it.  The fact is that there is someone running right now within the Democratic Party who is as attuned to the needs of the vast majority of Americans, the middle and working classes.  Go to   http://www.kucinich.us  and see for yourself.

Kudos Mudwollow for noting IRV as a change we do need. That still doesnt help us correct the “dimes worth of difference” problem however.

#87871 by Frank Cajon on 7/18 at 7:23 pm
(19 comments total)

The points being made by readers all have some merit. Some feel like I that it is blood for oil, a money scheme, others that it’s a Zionist proxy fight.
To Ga and Ardee Ralph Nader, if you can do math that puts Bush in the White House if Nader threw his support to GOre in 2000, you won’t get a rational argument from me to the contrary. BTW, I spent over 20 years in third and fourth parties. In the US, the Peace and Freedom Party and Socialist Workers Party are completely marginalized. I was constantly hit up for money by the SWP, and often had no say in the selection of candidates for their state and national offices of either party, since their conventions weren’t always publicized and their mailing lists updated. It was like being in a PTA at a poorly run school. P&F ran Angela Davis for an office in California, and as far to the left as I was, she was at the time a riot-inciting radical (this may not be the case now).

Frank, It matters not whether Nader voters added up to a winning margin for Gore because , were Nader not in the race I wouldnt have VOTED FOR GORE anyway!. I imagine that would be true of any number of Nader voters. Not trying for redundancy here but MY vote is earned not owed!

As to splinter parties and organisation, I too am very familiar with the problem. We must endeavor to persevere.

I think we need to reorganize the Democratic Party and integrate the Green Party and some of the ideals of the P&F party into it; while losing the ‘Republocats’ that constitute about 3/4 of the current Democratic encumbents. Dianne Feinstein is a big time Senator from my home state, who I vote against because she voted for Iraq funding, and who now is the poster girl for every conservative website and newspaper because she has been funneling $ to her hubby’s no-bid companies who are doing the same shit in Iraq that Cheney’s old pals are. We need to get new blood, young left-wing anti-war Congressmen and Senators elected and a grass-roots effort is the only way it will happen since the big biz $ is going to the Republocats, who represent all of the current crop of Democratic presidential hopefuls except for Kucinich, and MAYBE Obama if he votes against future war funding. Out with the old, in with the new. Trust me, the splinter party guys don’t stand a chance. Been there, done that.

Your comments re: integration saddens me, frankly, Frank. It shows that you fail to grasp the message of Ralph Nader or the events of the last six years plus; there isnt a dimes worth of difference between the two parties.

By the by, numbers are showing that Democrats are receiving more money than their Republican counterparts, and much of this is corporate in nature. Handwriting on the wall I guess, positioning to be owed favors by the winners…...

Getting off the subject but bringing up Ralph Nader and blaming him for spoiling the election means it’s time to bring up INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING. Instant runoff voting is easy to understand, simple to implement and eliminates this type of blame and finger-pointing.

Instead of constantly being forced to vote for the lesser of two evils, IRV allows American voters to rank their votes. Instant runoff voting allows voters to vote for who they really want without feeling that they’re throwing their votes away. In the Nader/Gore example, a voter would vote for Ralph Nader first and for Al Gore second. Your vote for Ralph Nader would be tallied so everyone would know how well Ralph did, but because Ralph didn’t receive a majority of votes your vote would go to Al Gore. It’s automatic and simple. Your vote for Ralph Nader is tallied but not lost because it then goes to Al Gore.

Instant runoff voting, gives American voters the feeling that their votes are worth something. Voters never have to feel that they are throwing their votes away by voting for the lesser of two evils. Instant runoff voting is the only method by which third party candidates stand a chance of winning major elections. If we do not implement instant runoff voting nationally, it’s guaranteed that we will have a two party system nearly indistinguishable from a single party system for the foreseeable future.

Rolf Nader said of the Democrats and Republicans “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two” and it’s hard to argue with that assessment. So if you’re sick of voting for Demopublicans or Republocrats you should check out instant runoff voting and start by getting it implemented on the local level.

http://www.instantrunoff.com/

Cyrena, it isn’t often that you and I disagree, but the fact is that Obama, since entering the Senate, voted to fund this war on every occasion but the very last time.  Obama said they simply did not have the votes to block funding.  That was a lie.  Then and now it only takes 41 votes in the Senate to fillibuster any bill containing funding.

This latest charade was over an effort to attack an amendment to the latest defense authorization bill that would have required a withdrawal commencing next April.  They made a good show of it, staying up over night, before caving in.  If they had any courage, they would refuse to permit an up or down vote on the defense authorization bill until the amendment was included.

#87521 by johnofportland on 7/17 at 2:36 pm
(14 comments total)

Yeah, as an old fart from the 60’s (Nam era) I have the same question.  Everbody is complaining but I don’t see anybody on the streets…I remember…it really got everyones attention and even when I was called a “commie faggot” it felt good because I knew it was having an effect.

Happy Trails

#87876 by cyrena on 7/18 at 7:54 pm

#87871 by Frank Cajon on 7/18 at 7:23 pm

Frank, thanks for the post. On this, I wanted to add a note…

“We need to get new blood, young left-wing anti-war Congressmen and Senators elected and a grass-roots effort is the only way it will happen since the big biz $ is going to the Republocats, who represent all of the current crop of Democratic presidential hopefuls except for Kucinich, and MAYBE Obama if he votes against future war funding. Out with the old, in with the new. Trust me, the splinter party guys don’t stand a chance.

Okay guys…can we dispense with the left wing/right wing crap…we need intelligent compassionate people and I know they exist on both sides of the spectrum.  Tom McCall, the past governor of Oregon was an example of a truly progressive person and he was a Republican.  True, the present herd of Republicans are, are, shit, but I know this R/L stuff is dividing and we need a unified front against this fascist grab of our country.  So let’s welcome anybody from any belief to join against this very real, very dangerous enemy inside of our gate.  The real problem is, most of us just don’t see or realize this very real threat and it’s very real and it’s here now.  Unify and conquer the bastards.

#87871 by Frank Cajon on 7/18 at 7:23 pm

Frank, thanks for the post. On this, I wanted to add a note…

“We need to get new blood, young left-wing anti-war Congressmen and Senators elected and a grass-roots effort is the only way it will happen since the big biz $ is going to the Republocats, who represent all of the current crop of Democratic presidential hopefuls except for Kucinich, and MAYBE Obama if he votes against future war funding. Out with the old, in with the new. Trust me, the splinter party guys don’t stand a chance. Been there, done that.”...

I agree with all of the above, (having been there and done it myself.. and we have the same State senator.)

But, just a note on Obama…he has NEVER voted in favor of funding this war…EVER. He didn’t vote to use force to begin with, (as did nearly all of the others from both parties that were in the Senate at the time…except for Kucinich). So, that shouldn’t be lost. He’s also managed to gather his funding through grassroots organizations, rather than the usual corporate and other “sponsors.” He’s done it primarily by soliciting small donations that the much less fortunate can come up with, and that includes most of us. I even gave him $10.00.

I’ve also been able to take only a brief glimpse of a health plan that he’s proposed, (having assembled a team of experts that actually know how this stuff could actually WORK) and it looks pretty good. I’ve also had an opportunity to read a lot of Obama’s own work, (and his books) and I think that he deserves serious consideration. I’m doing that more and more, as others simply disqualify themselves. I think he should hook up with Mike Gravel, since it would be good to have a backup with some experience that Barack hasn’t lived long enough to get yet.

For an old dude, Mike Gravel is pretty cool. He’s got good “history”.

Meantime, Angela Davis has long ago given up inciting rebellion. She’s teaching at UCSC now, and was here in our own area a couple of years ago. She’s definitely mellowed out, and it was a good talk.

The points being made by readers all have some merit. Some feel like I that it is blood for oil, a money scheme, others that it’s a Zionist proxy fight.
To Ga and Ardee Ralph Nader, if you can do math that puts Bush in the White House if Nader threw his support to GOre in 2000, you won’t get a rational argument from me to the contrary. BTW, I spent over 20 years in third and fourth parties. In the US, the Peace and Freedom Party and Socialist Workers Party are completely marginalized. I was constantly hit up for money by the SWP, and often had no say in the selection of candidates for their state and national offices of either party, since their conventions weren’t always publicized and their mailing lists updated. It was like being in a PTA at a poorly run school. P&F ran Angela Davis for an office in California, and as far to the left as I was, she was at the time a riot-inciting radical (this may not be the case now). I think we need to reorganize the Democratic Party and integrate the Green Party and some of the ideals of the P&F party into it; while losing the ‘Republocats’ that constitute about 3/4 of the current Democratic encumbents. Dianne Feinstein is a big time Senator from my home state, who I vote against because she voted for Iraq funding, and who now is the poster girl for every conservative website and newspaper because she has been funneling $ to her hubby’s no-bid companies who are doing the same shit in Iraq that Cheney’s old pals are. We need to get new blood, young left-wing anti-war Congressmen and Senators elected and a grass-roots effort is the only way it will happen since the big biz $ is going to the Republocats, who represent all of the current crop of Democratic presidential hopefuls except for Kucinich, and MAYBE Obama if he votes against future war funding. Out with the old, in with the new. Trust me, the splinter party guys don’t stand a chance. Been there, done that.

ITW, this is one occasion in which you and I agree, somewhat.  Posters who seek to reduce everything the U.S. does to some unseen, behind-the-scenes Zionist conspiracy border upon paranoid anti-Semites.  That said, I am also convinced that those posters who seek to conflate every criticism of Zionism or Israel’s illegal, brutal occupation into some rabid anti-Semitism are likewise disengenous.

I would agree with you that the effort to explain Iraq by way of Zionism alone is like having a tail wag the dog.  But I also know that Israel and AIPAC are not innocent bystanders and that they exercise a degree of influence over U.S. politicians and the American media that is vastly greater than one would expect from a nation of that size, in part because many Jewish Americans are more rabid Zionists than many ordinary Israeli citizens who experience a greater range of dialogue, critical of the occupation, in the Israeli press than we do here.

When it comes to Iraq, one cannot overlook “U.S.” policy as spelled out by the PNAC as early as 1991.  The goal was always regime change for the purpose of acquiring a permanent base of operations for the U.S. military in the oil rich middle east.  There is, indeed, a “U.S.” imperialism and U.S. military-industrial complex that is broader in scope and purpose than Israel, a U.S. client-state.

This does not mean that the goals of both U.S. imperialism and Israeli Zionists are not aligned, but it does mean that the issues and relationships are far more complex than simplistic Zionist conspiracy theories can explain.

I meant, ‘DemocratIC party’ of course.

One thing about Nader “taking votes away” from Gore: Pure speculation.

Perhaps in Florida the amount of votes for Nader that would have been for Gore or Bush would have resulted in more for Gore. One may say even, probably. But overall, one can not say for certain what would have happened. Nader made a good case that he had recieved many Republican votes.

This “Nader took away” concept is just not an absolute and no reasonable person should adere to it.  people just love simple answers to much.

Also, and perhaps more important, is that we want, need, more than just two of the same choices every damn time!

When are people really going to wake up? Many people here are Dems/Libs/Progs/Mods, and many of those also complain about the Democrat party. Then we need a THIRD or even a FOURTH or FIFTH PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!

Frank Cajon,

We seem in agreement on Israel and thats nice. We remain in disagreement on Nader’s right to run and his involement in Gore’s loss, and thats OK. It would be weird and boring to be in agreement about everything.

For me, Ralph Nader stood for far more than did Al Gore, spoke to issues and policies that I endorsed and I voted for him precisely because he best represented me. I believe that one is modest about ones successes and stands up for ones own failures, and Gore, to his credit , has never once blamed Nader. You are, of course, free to do so. I am free to vote for him again should he run and should he again represent my views.

Inherit The Wind,

Thank you for the kind words and it is good to see that at least one other shares my view of the absurdity of a mythic and powerful Zionism that rules the world. I,too, see such as nothing less than a new form of anti semitism.

When one reads GodSpeak one shudders for his religious zealotry, the kind that burned witches.Most here debate sans personal attack, some do not. I can give as good as I get and dont worry much about personal insult, its the politics I speak to and the hopes and dreams for the future.

#87686 by NYT9237723 on 7/18 at 8:14 am
(Unregistered commenter)

Again: bright people miss the point of GWB. Insulting him by calling him “idiot” or some variation denigrating his intelligence blinds people to his strengths and his agenda.

Thanks for reiterating this. It is amazing how few are willing or able to see the true sinister nature of Dick Cheney, George Bush and their brownshirt brethren.

The Bush Cheney game employs a new twist on good cop bad cop. It’s kind of a combination of good cop bad cop and perpetual bait and switch. Continue the charade that Dick Cheney is the bad cop and that George Bush is the good buddy doofus as long as you possibly can. Then when no one gives a crap anymore, switch the good buddy doofus into a demented nutcase. Now you’re left with no one to blame and no one to be angry with. Bad cop-crazy cop, what a choice. But it’s just a game. A game that’s successfully looted trillions of dollars and killed hundreds of thousands of people, but just a game.

To Non Credo and Ardee, and others that have problems with my blog, I reiterate that I don’t use this as a chat room, those are just my reads. Yeah, I think Nader has an ego the size of the world, because of it took votes away from Gore in 2000 when he could have done more good for his own cause by not enabling Dubya to take the environment and consumers down along with the rest of America for what has become an eight year decline.
Like a lot of other people who want change I have never been pleased with the militaristic government in Israel and the way that the US has sold that government weapons of mass destruction since the late 1940’s. I am nervous as hell that Israel has nuclear weapons, but not as much as I would be if North Korea had them, or Iran. But I don’t favor war with either of those countries, either.
I have lurked this site for months and only been blogging, (mainly about Bush’s paranoid schizophrenia due to my work in the mental health field, but also about the Libby farce, etc) for only a couple of weeks. I personally think that the blogs that claim Zionist or Israeli operatives blew up the buildings on 9/11 or that they secretly fund Cheney and Bush and are behind the Iraq invasion are almost ridiculously wrong. I think that simple greed, that the Saudi connection, the money laundering of our half-trillion into the pockets of arms dealers, no-bid contractors, and equally corrupt lobbyists and politicians like Duke Cunningham, Tom Delay, and countless others is a much more obvious answer to this mess than a pro-Zionist conspiracy, but that’s just my read, take it or leave it. What I am most serious about is the fact that the US Congress has been castrated and will not stand up to the fact that Bush has declared himself, Cheney, and Rove some Triumvirate for the 21st Century. They control all three branches of government with complete impunity, ignoring all legal precedents. When Nixon tried this shit, articles of impeachment were on the printers and he was told they were, so got the fuck out of dodge. Now, not only do we see none of the top rank of Democratic opposition willing to deny him a cent to fight this atrocity war, we see very little in the way of demonstrations against the war and no discussion of impeachment against him or Cheney when both clearly have been guilty of obstruction of justice, contempt of Congress, and conspiracy to commit both of those crimes.
A non-violent day of civil disobedience, with organized assemblies demanding an end to the bloodshed, nationwide, has not been tried on a large scale. On a small scale, it gets the old ‘not supporting our troops’ shit, when it is the ultimate act of support for them, to go to the streets making yourself heard to bring them home alive. None of the Demo candidates has the courage to call for this, but it is the only way to get the new ‘silent majority’ heard. If only they cared enough to get out from in front of their TVs and out of their SUVs and off their cells and get out and do it.

On a humorous side, bu$h reminds me of those old time snake oil salesman.

On a more ominous side he reminds me of that religeous nut Jim Jones who convinced 900 of his folowers to follow him to hana then convinced them to follow him into heaven by drinking the Cherry Cool-aid laced with arsenic.

This guy is a nutso job!

Using psychology and the mass media to achieve their goals has long been methods of the Bush-Cheney administration.

Though many Americans have gotten wise to this, it seems like we still need to stay one step ahead of the Bush-Cheney bunch.

Any insight we can gain about human psychology, intelligence, the mass media and other aspects of our society in these times could be very helpful.

A few elements might be worth checking out in the article ...

“Being open to perception can be troubling, enlightening”

American Chronicle
July 16, 2007

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArtic le.asp?articleID=32379

We the people need to set some Benchmarks on our elected representatives.