Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
February 20, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.
x

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.


Last Stand at Standing Rock




What We Do Now

Truthdig Bazaar
Wealth and Power

Wealth and Power

Orville Schell
$30.00

more items

 
Report
Email this item Print this item

‘Centrists’ Running the Asylum

Posted on Jul 17, 2008

By David Sirota

In the asylum that is American politics, beware a candidate like Barack Obama when he is lauded for moving to “the center”—because usually that means he is drifting away from it.

Over the last month, the Democratic presidential nominee has backed a measure to permit warrantless wiretapping and protect telecom companies when they violate customers’ privacy; sent conflicting signals about whether he will reform the NAFTA trade model; and threatened to revise his timetable for ending the war in Iraq. Universally, reporters have billed this dance as a move to the middle. As the Associated Press claimed in a typical description, Obama’s shifts are designed “to appeal to the center of the electorate.”

However, empirical data prove “the center of the electorate” is exactly the opposite:

—Polls by Quinnipiac University and the Mellman Group found majorities support warrant requirements for wiretaps and oppose immunity for companies that released private consumer information without such warrants.

—Surveys by Fortune magazine, CNN and The Wall Street Journal report that most Americans oppose NAFTA-style trade policies.

—For years, major polls have consistently shown Americans want a firm timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. As just one of many examples, five separate USA Today surveys since 2007 have shown majorities want the president to “set a timetable for removing troops from Iraq and to stick to that timetable regardless of what is going on in Iraq.”

So, the undebatable evidence tells us precisely where the center of public opinion is. Yet when a presidential candidate moves away from the center, we are told he is moving toward it. What gives?

Part of the up-is-down distortion reflects perspective—or lack thereof.

Most politicians and journalists who set the parameters of our political debate live in Washington and make six-figure salaries. They are geographically, financially and socially isolated from the blood-and-guts consequences of today’s two wars—the one in Iraq and the one on the middle class. That insulation skews viewpoints.

Indeed, the center of opinion in the nation’s capital is very different from the center of opinion in the country at large. In elite D.C., a moderate is one who backs job-killing trade deals, legal immunity for corporate wrongdoers, and wars for oil, regardless of casualties. And so when Obama embraces those positions, Beltway opinion-makers really think he’s being a “centrist”—regardless of how far away from the actual center he’s moving.

But, then, not all politicians and pundits are completely ignorant of life outside the palace walls. A calculated Jedi mind trick is at work here, too.

When regular folks talk to friends and neighbors, we sure feel like our desire for privacy, disgust with NAFTA and opposition to the Iraq war are mainstream majority positions—and they are. But then comes the barrage.

Day after day, smiling anchormen, blow-dried correspondents and silver-tongued congressmen follow the Big Lie theory of indoctrination, taking to our televisions, radios and newspapers insisting that crazy is normal, the majority is the minority and—most important—the fringe is the “center.” This is no accident.

These voices of the status quo do not want the status quo challenged. They deliberately broadcast messages crafted to get us—the mainstream—to question our mainstream-ness, while convincing politicians that the Establishment’s extremism represents a responsible middle ground. 

More Aldous Huxley than George Orwell, these are the methods of modern propaganda, with the celebration of Obama’s “centrism” the latest doublespeak. In this brave new world, language is sculpted to skew the “center,” intimidating the majority from demanding concrete change for fear of looking like lunatics. It is a slickly packaged process of marginalization and demoralization—one with an underlying goal: keeping the real lunatics running the asylum.

David Sirota is a best-selling author whose newest book, “The Uprising,” was released in June. He is a fellow at the Campaign for America’s Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network, both nonpartisan organizations. His blog is at www.credoaction.com/sirota.

© 2008 Creators Syndicate Inc.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By Inherit The Wind, July 21, 2008 at 10:02 am Link to this comment

jackpine savage

InheritTheWind, yes, i did read your post.  But i still fail to see how two parties is the only “logical” outcome of our system.  It is now, but only because they have a stranglehold on the money and the rules.  They get to choose the voters before the voters get to choose them, and they’ve managed to find a way to use public funds to operate their nomination contests (while retaining the right to exclude anyone who isn’t one of them).  Not to mention their collusion with the media…who won’t even tell you about other candidates for office.

But there is no reason why a congressional district couldn’t elect someone who isn’t a D or an R.  Imagine if just 100 districts did it: gridlock over because party line voting wouldn’t work anymore.

It can happen and has happened—but it didn’t eliminate the 2-party system—it merely replaced one party with a new one. It happened when William Henry Harrison was elected and again when Lincoln was elected.  It almost happened again in 1912, too, with Teddy Roosevelt leading the charge.

I’m not against having a greater-than 2 party system but I don’t advocate going to a parliamentary system, nor to a proportional system where you have NO say in who is actually placed in power. (as opposed to little say).

It’s not imagination or “tradition”—it’s an analysis of how we actually elect leaders under our system. Even when idealized the 2-Party system is a logical consequence of our Constitution and the total regionalization of every aspect of elections.

We can’t even get rid of the Electoral College which is popular SOLELY with the parties and governments of the small states, who, with it, have a dis- proportionally large say in who is elected President.  They also have a dis-proportionally large Senate presence that is totally unfair.  Check out how many people the 49 Democratic Senators represent, and how many the 49 GOPs do…it’s about a 2:1 margin!

Report this

By jackpine savage, July 21, 2008 at 6:05 am Link to this comment

It’s so sad, but every day BO looks more and more like the second coming of Bill Clinton.  And recreating Clinton’s foreign policy team is about the worst idea i’ve heard since we thought about electing G.W. Bush.  (If Clinton’s failures are ranked in order of importance, his foreign policy makes the top of the list.)

InheritTheWind, yes, i did read your post.  But i still fail to see how two parties is the only “logical” outcome of our system.  It is now, but only because they have a stranglehold on the money and the rules.  They get to choose the voters before the voters get to choose them, and they’ve managed to find a way to use public funds to operate their nomination contests (while retaining the right to exclude anyone who isn’t one of them).  Not to mention their collusion with the media…who won’t even tell you about other candidates for office.

But there is no reason why a congressional district couldn’t elect someone who isn’t a D or an R.  Imagine if just 100 districts did it: gridlock over because party line voting wouldn’t work anymore.

We’ve fallen for the fallacy that how we do it now is the only way that it works, but since we’ve never tried another way we can’t verify that.  No, we don’t have a parliamentary system so proportional representation is a pipe dream.  But there are well thought plans out there for tweaks to the system that would bring some of those benefits.  The chances of enacting them are slim to none, because the two parties would have to vote to give up their own stranglehold on the system…fat chance.

Report this

By Allen G, July 20, 2008 at 5:39 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Tony Wicher said:
“The chicken-egg problem is ultimately insoluble….”  How so?  The egg obviously did not come first, how could it have?

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, July 20, 2008 at 2:33 pm Link to this comment

Thank you outraged for providing the link I was unable to get together. I think it should dawn on everyone that I have no ax to grind with anyone on this site or elsewhere. I am interested in providing information that will further the discussion on any important topic. Thank you again.

Report this

By cyrena, July 20, 2008 at 1:06 pm Link to this comment

Outraged…

Thanks for the link. I didn’t know. And, as usual, it’s all about the context.

Still, good to be updated.

Have you read Scheers piece on the McSame Gramms?

That should pretty much scare the shit out of any sane person.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, July 20, 2008 at 11:41 am Link to this comment

Re: Cyrena

Along with thebeerdoctor’s link this article in McClatchy’s has a good listing of the major players.

McClatchy’s:
“O’Hanlon said that Perry brought special expertise on issues such as defense technology, the use of force and nuclear proliferation. He characterized Albright’s addition as “a good way to start bringing people together” and said Christopher’s record was mixed because of problems on his watch in Somalia and Bosnia and with the Middle East peace talks.

Albright, Christopher and Perry join a panel that’s already peopled with many former Clinton administration officials who sided with Obama during the long contested primary.

They include former Clinton National Security Adviser Tony Lake; former Assistant Secretary of State Susan Rice; Greg Craig, the former director of the State Department’s Office of Policy Planning; former Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder; former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig; and former Deputy National Security Adviser Jim Steinberg.”

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/104/story/41485.html

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, July 20, 2008 at 10:20 am Link to this comment

re;re;re; cyrena’
I am sorry but neither link works, but wait, just google up “mark steel on barack obama” and you will find it.
B D

Report this

By cyrena, July 20, 2008 at 9:07 am Link to this comment

Outraged,

HELP! I know I may not be up to speed on every detail of all of these things going on it Obama’s work. But on THIS???

•  “…Are the American People en masse supporting Obama’s choice of “foreign policy experts”, such as Madeline Albright…?”

When and where the hell did SHE pop up? (anywhere near the Obama camp) Please say it ain’t so. Albright was Hillary’s girl. Is this a typo? Please say it’s just an error.

I have a feeling this may be a confusion. Could you be thinking of ZBig? I think he’s a good adviser, but other’s have complained, generally without any real knowledge or in-context analysis. Still, that’s a matter of opinion.

But Madelaine Albright? No I don’t think THAT switch has happened.

Still, let us know if that is the case. It could -actually it WOULD- be a matter of concern to me…for sure.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 20, 2008 at 8:23 am Link to this comment

Jackpine,
Did you actually READ what I posted?  I never said the Constitution required 2 parties.  I said it set up a system where 2 parties were the only logical result. Since you have to contest each district and each county, the two top parties will always be in control and third and fourth parties dwindle.

If you have proportional representation, a Ross Perot would automatically get 10-15% of the “electoral” vote, and 10-15% of the seats in Congress.  His party would therefore become a power broker and, if effective, grow.

But that’s a parliamentary system, which we most decidely do NOT have.

Ross Perot seems effective until you compare his campaign to the truly great (in terms of effectiveness) 3rd party campaigns, the last of which was George Wallace’s party that won electoral votes in 1968.  I don’t know if the Dixiecrats in 1948 won any, but the Socialists did for Eugene Debs, and the Progressive Party nearly supplanted the GOP in 1912 when TR left the Republicans.

Or the Populists were SO powerful the Democrats were forced to absorb them and their policies in 1896.

The Constitution is the skeleton.  The 2 party system is the flesh on the bones.  That’s not a choice or a desire, merely the expression of a fact.

Report this

By jackpine savage, July 20, 2008 at 5:00 am Link to this comment

Re: Inherit The Wind

The Constitution says nothing about parties at all.  The President and Vice President were originally the two highest vote getters.  A serious third party could wreak havoc with the electoral college system, but would not necessarily do so.

There is no reason why viable “third” parties could not elect representatives and senators.

And it’s not like we’ve stuck to the Constitution.  We now elect Senators rather than the State Legislatures electing them.  The framers expected the Constitution to be amended; that’s why they developed a mechanism for doing so.  I mean, they didn’t put in any provisions for counting the votes of women and colored people originally.

The argument that our system was designed for two parties and will only work correctly with only two parties is baseless.  Hell, without Ross Perot’s third party bid garnering 19% of the vote in 1992 there probably wouldn’t have been a Clinton Presidency at all.

And while everyone is fond of quoting Ike’s farewell address, what of Washington’s?  He clearly warns of the dangers of party politics.  And was promptly proven right by being ignored.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 20, 2008 at 4:48 am Link to this comment

samosamo, July 19 at 8:56 pm #

By Inherit The Wind, July 19 at 6:50 pm #

You know you have some valid shit there but anytime someone can be put on a ballot besides those of familar dems and repubs creates tertiary parties. Ask Bernie Sanders Senator for Vermont. And with that said and the election is still in the future, what makes you think that the impossible could not happen? It would probably wreak the lobbyists agendas for a while and that would probably be a good thing as I basically get the idea you abhor anything more complex that a 2 party political system which I ask another question, do you see many signs since the 2006 elections that we were working with a 2 party system?
*****************************************

You misunderstood me.  I have nothing against multi-party systems.  In fact they have many distinct advantages over 2-party systems, such as making the compromise between positions be far more out in the open—forming a coalition to form a government.  It works all over the world, but especially in Europe.

But we don’t have a parliamentary system—we have an executive system.  We don’t have a proportional represenation system, we have a district-by-district system.  Sure, some 3rd party candidates can win—Jeffords and Lieberman are, however, an extreme rarity.  And BOTH of them originally won as members of the 2 parties, Jeffords in the GOP, Lieberman in the Dems.

Nor am I against upsetting the status quo in either of the two parties.  My point is that by the time the election rolls around, the 3rd party is either truly viable (Lieberman in 2006) or it’s at best, a spoiler (Perot in 1992, Nader in 2000).  Usually, it’s not even that, just a wasted vote for “Neither” that’s never massive enough to matter.  Again, now, in mid-July of 2008, when the election is only 3 1/2 months away, the opportunity for an effective 3rd party is over and done with.

All you have to do is look at successful and failed 3rd party efforts.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, July 20, 2008 at 2:28 am Link to this comment

To disengage with the two party system translates as its destruction, that dear citizen is your perception and opinion only.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, July 20, 2008 at 12:32 am Link to this comment

David Sirota’s comment in the article I think expresses then underlying FACTS. He asserts:

“As the Associated Press claimed in a typical description, Obama’s shifts are designed “to appeal to the center of the electorate.”

However, empirical data prove “the center of the electorate” is exactly the opposite”

>This is true across the spectrum, at least as far as the “reports” we’ve been getting.  To add insult to injury, THEY ARE A LIE.  On top of that these “reports” have WITHOUT QUESTION conveniently purposed that “the progressive base was unhappy” with these “centrist positions”.

Isn’t this pure adulterated propaganda?  Does it stand to reason that this is a “progressive issue” and that “everyone else” actually sees things differently….?

From the article:

“—Polls by Quinnipiac University and the Mellman Group found majorities support warrant requirements for wiretaps and oppose immunity for companies that released private consumer information without such warrants.

—Surveys by Fortune magazine, CNN and The Wall Street Journal report that most Americans oppose NAFTA-style trade policies.

—For years, major polls have consistently shown Americans want a firm timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. As just one of many examples, five separate USA Today surveys since 2007 have shown majorities want the president to “set a timetable for removing troops from Iraq and to stick to that timetable regardless of what is going on in Iraq.”

So, the undebatable evidence tells us precisely where the center of public opinion is. Yet when a presidential candidate moves away from the center, we are told he is moving toward it.”

> To quote Mr. Sirota, “what gives” indeed.  Mary Poppins might call this “Poppycock” and she wouldn’t be wrong.  This is a blantant attempt to skew public opinion with UNFOUNDED claims.

Obama HAS NOT SWAYED TO THE CENTER.  So…the question begs to be asked, “Where does Obama sway…?”

Is the “faith-based initiative” something the American People en masse endorse?

Is “concentrating” our “war against terror” in Afghanistan and Pakistan something the American People support?

Is the FISA vote agreeable to the MAJORITY?

Are the American People en masse supporting Obama’s choice of “foreign policy experts”, such as Madeline Albright…?

Is NAFTA and other free trade agreements opposed only by “progressives”?

What about the touting of “welfare reforms”....does Obama include WEALTHY CORPORTATIONS when he makes these assertions?

Obama cannot claim “centrist” positions when the facts prove otherwise.  There must be someone Obama’s supporting, and guess what…it ain’t us…. the American People.

Best to begin looking for alternatives, unless you sadistically enjoy getting the shaft.  Or as my mother used to say, “I don’t want the shit end of the stick”.

Report this

By samosamo, July 19, 2008 at 8:56 pm Link to this comment

By Inherit The Wind, July 19 at 6:50 pm #

You know you have some valid shit there but anytime someone can be put on a ballot besides those of familar dems and repubs creates tertiary parties. Ask Bernie Sanders Senator for Vermont. And with that said and the election is still in the future, what makes you think that the impossible could not happen? It would probably wreak the lobbyists agendas for a while and that would probably be a good thing as I basically get the idea you abhor anything more complex that a 2 party political system which I ask another question, do you see many signs since the 2006 elections that we were working with a 2 party system?

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 19, 2008 at 7:46 pm Link to this comment

cyrena,

Socrates is my favorite, too. Those were the days! What a great culture those ancient Greeks had! It must have been a blessing to live then. But I think today the Internet provides those of us who enjoy dialogue unique opportunities to meet other minds and to learn from each other. I think if anything is going to save us, this will.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 19, 2008 at 6:50 pm Link to this comment

We have a 2-party system.  It’s a consequence of the way our Constitution organized our system.  Because overall performance in an election is meaningless, and you have to compete in each electoral district for assemblyman, state senator, congressman and senator, and, in the presidential elections, in an all-or-nothing state-by-state battle for electoral votes, only a two parties at a time can effectively function.

The only way third parties succeed is to either displace existing parties, as the Whigs displaced the Federalists and were, in their turn, replaced by the Republicans. Or they get absorbed by a major party and force that party to change.  The absorbtion of the Populists by the Democrats in 1896, or the Dixiecrats by the GOP with Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” in 1968.

So we have a 2-party system and there are two candidates.  Any other choice is a too-late throw-away of your vote—your “protest vote” is a year to two years too late and can, at most, be a spoiler.

Not to realize this is to be a knucklehead.

Report this

By kath cantarella, July 19, 2008 at 6:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Going by what is presented in the media, the center in the US is the equivalent of the right here in Australia, the right in the US is the lunatic fringe here in Oz, and the US far right has simply dropped off the scale. Please bear in mind that the (traditionally strong) Australian ‘left’ has been moving right for decades now.

But i do get the distinct feeling of a left-leaning general populace in the US being smothered by right-leaning wealth and power. It’s the same deal here in Oz. ‘Labour’ is the left party here, but it has become so centre right you can hardly tell the difference anymore. So much for even a ‘2-party system’, when there’s only one party. The Greens, a small party, have stepped up in the last few years to represent part of the real left. But it will take decades to build that party up. And they won’t get a lot of help from the big money so it’s a Herculean task.

Report this

By troublesum, July 19, 2008 at 6:21 pm Link to this comment

And more   http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/337748

No difference between McCain’s and Obama’s position.

Report this

By Tim Gatto, July 19, 2008 at 6:05 pm Link to this comment

I can’t believe how much we think alike.

Report this

By troublesum, July 19, 2008 at 5:58 pm Link to this comment

More of the same: http://www.truthout.org/article/dear-senator-obama

The problem is that Obama, like Bush/Cheney, does not listen to anyone who disagrees with him.

Report this

By troublesum, July 19, 2008 at 5:36 pm Link to this comment

cyrena, stop commenting on what other people say.  You invariably get it wrong and are incapable of following any argument or train of thought that differs from your own.  How many people have told you that here?

Report this

By cyrena, July 19, 2008 at 5:17 pm Link to this comment

Part 1 of 2 Tony and Samosamo
Bingo Tony!!

•  “..but in the case of the system and the people, I think there is a definite answer. It has to be be the people, doesn’t it? I think this is where I part ways with a lot of leftists. “The system” means our system of laws, starting with the Constitution. Now the framers of the Constitution did their best to create a system, a structure of laws, that was as resilient as they could make it to the moral flaws of human nature. As far as I know they did the best job of it in history. But no system of laws can survive widespread social corruption..”

And, if this is a point of departure from the leftists, than I’m ‘departed’ as well. I agree with this 100% because of COURSE it’s the people. (the ignorance of some who don’t know the difference continues to amaze me.) And the reason that no system of laws can survive widespread social corruption is because morality cannot be legislated. It simply cannot be. Morality can’t even be instituted by ‘religion’ because we’ve already witnessed the hypocrisy of THAT, from day one.

So there we have it. The ‘system’ is as good as it can be, factoring in for those elements that CANNOT BE CONTROLLED..the primary one being the moral flaws of human nature. This is where my one of only two ‘prayers’ comes into play. The first one is the Serenity Prayer. It means understanding that there are certain things over which we have no control. And we have no control over the morality or integrity of other human beings. We have an imperfect system of punishing people who commit crimes against others, due to their own moral flaws. But that is the extent of the control.

An example is the much needed Civil Rights Legislation that took a couple of Centuries to incorporate into the system. Now just making it ‘illegal’ to practice discrimination doesn’t change the mentality of those who are intolerant of others, for whatever the reason. The law doesn’t mean that the committed racist all of a sudden becomes the most tolerant person in the universe. It just establishes it as unacceptable behavior, making them less likely to ‘act’ on their moral flaws, because of the consequences.

And yep..I agree that the ‘Founders’ (though you know how I feel about that terminology wink ) were indeed Philosophers. And yes, I appreciate Plato as well, though I’m particularly partial to Socrates.

Report this

By cyrena, July 19, 2008 at 5:16 pm Link to this comment

Part 2 of 2 Tony and Samosamo

Samosamo makes the same point that I was trying to make earlier, when he writes this:

•  “…The 2 party system isn’t really broken and indeed it basically it is not just a 2 party system as independents and libertarians and greens can be on a ballot. But every thing is broken down to this or that or yea/nay or him/her or just the basic black and white decision…”

At the end of the day, everybody gets to say yes or no, to whatever the ‘deal’ happens to be. And it doesn’t matter a whit, what the hell ‘party’ they happen to be from or about. Obviously, different parties claim to espouse different principles, at least in theory. But they are required to ALL espouse the ideology of a democracy. There’s no doubt that this has failed us from time to time, and when that happens, it can create a Constitutional crises. Anytime the break from the basic ideologies that are defined by the concept of a democracy are violated, then YEAH, there’s gonna be a crises.

The dilemma that Samosamo addresses about everything eventually boiling down to a black and white decision IS a dilemma, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be, and we’re gradually, (oh so slowly) moving away from that just a tiny bit. However, that TOO goes in cycles, dependent on who is holding sway at the time, and how they INTERPRET black letter law. For instance, many folks would like to label the most dangerous people in the US (the radicals on the Supreme Court…Scalia, Thomas, don’t get me going) as ‘conservative’. They aren’t ‘conservative’, they are RADICAL REACTIONARIES!

But I digress. Samosamo is also correct in that too many of us..a majority probably,  don’t get the kind of information and education that we need, in order to understand what the system is supposed to accomplish, and what it cannot. My most recent trudge through the sub, sub field of Comparative Law has made that abundantly clear. And when folks don’t understand something, they become very frustrated with it. That too, seems to be a human nature thing. At that point, an all too common reaction is to simply dis the entire thing. It’s ALL bad. It’s ALL negative. And…they’re willing to simply chuck the entire thing, without a clue to what they’re gonna to with NOTHING, because they have no idea how to put anything else together. If they didn’t understand the first system, they can’t create a new one. So it’s like, well, I’ll just cut off my nose, because I’m pissed off at my face. Then the one and only nose that they had is gone, and while their face may indeed be pissed off, they now have a pissed off face without a nose. The next step for these types is to blame somebody else for ‘causing them’ to cut off their own nose and piss off their own face. It’s something like, ‘see what you made me do?”

Meantime troublesum, get this, and get it really well this time, YOU DON’T KNOW HOW OR WHAT I THINK! So, don’t comment on what I say, because anything I say here is entirely over your head. You’ve got one channel operating, and IT seems to be clogged with plague. (or something). So, don’t trouble yourself with explaining anything that I say. I write clearly, and most folks can understand it. If they do not, they will ask questions, and I will be happy to answer. Only I can say what I mean, and only I can relay what I ‘feel’, or what I like or dislike, and WHY.

So, you just stick to showing who and what YOU’RE about. That is surely task enough, since it seems to require a lot of faking.  Don’t concern yourself with what I’m about, because for one thing, it is NOT IMPORTANT how *I* feel about Obama, (which is your obsession) and in the grand scheme of things, it’s not important how *I* feel about any specific political issue. The OTHER reason is that you can’t figure it out anyway.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 19, 2008 at 5:15 pm Link to this comment

By samosamo, July 19 at 11:08 am #

THIS CAN VERY WELL HAPPEN AGAIN!!!!! because there are a desparate people that do not want to give up power and ‘tricks’ are the name of the game when trying to retain power.
——————————————————————————
Sure it can, which is why I’m sure the Obama campaign will be spending millions on poll watchers and legal support to try to make sure it doesn’t. Everyone who has democracy at heart could do no better than volunteer to help the Obama campaign and the Democratic party do it. My hope is that this is going to be such a landslide that they won’t dare try to steal it. If they do try, if exit polls show a 60-40 Democratic landslide but the vote count shows a bare Republican victory, that’s when “the system” breaks down, for me. That’s when the time has come for the tree of liberty to be watered with the blood of patriots, in Jefferson’s words. Just hand me a gun and a ticket to Washington.

Report this

By troublesum, July 19, 2008 at 2:47 pm Link to this comment

cyrena has it ass backwards as usual.  Beerdoc dislikes the system as well as the people who make it up - you can’t have one without the other.  Cyrena dislikes the system but likes some of the people in it - mostly only Obama - believing that he is somehow above it all and way beyond mere mortals like us.  “He’s always way ahead of the public in his understanding…”  She also believes that he speaks in leftist code in order to leave loop holes to move to the left once he wins.  Everything he says during the campaign is just meant to get votes.  What he really believes is all in the codes and loop holes.  yada yada…..

Report this

By jackpine savage, July 19, 2008 at 2:17 pm Link to this comment

Re: Tony Wilcher

Indeed, Clinton raised the tax rate (is that a “liberal” policy?).  However, in the 1993 tax code changes, the capital gains tax did not rise from the 28% that it had been set at.  So basically, if you worked for the $200,000 you earned with your spouse you got to pay more taxes on that.  But if you gained $200,000 from doing nothing your tax rate stayed the same.  This effectively spurned 401(k) investment as those monies were A. deferrable for tax purposes and B. subject to capital gains tax rates.  In other words, Bill Clinton directed money into the stock market…lo, that liberal bastion.

In 1997, the capital gains tax rate was lowered to 20%.  I’m not sure what’s so liberal about that.

Clinton’s surplus was a budget surplus.  If you subtract the rise in the trade deficit during the Clinton years (to all time highs), then you’re pretty much left with nothing.  He basically increased debt and made it look like wealth.

G.W. Bush has been dealing with a Democratic Congress and that hasn’t stopped him.  I’m sorry, but the excuse that Clinton had to deal with a Republican Congress (virulent as it was) really doesn’t cut it…it is nothing more than an excuse.  Particularly because he never stood up to them and forced them to override vetoes.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 19, 2008 at 1:51 pm Link to this comment

Re cyrena, July 19 at 8:46 am #

Ah, one of my favorite conundrums, the prioblem of paleoooontological priority. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Which has ontological priority, “the system” or the people? The chicken-egg problem is ultimately insoluble, but in the case of the system and the people, I think there is a definite answer. It has to be be the people, doesn’t it? I think this is where I part ways with a lot of leftists. “The system” means our system of laws, starting with the Constitution. Now the framers of the Constitution did their best to create a system, a structure of laws, that was as resilient as they could make it to the moral flaws of human nature. As far as I know they did the best job of it in history. But no system of laws can survive widespread social corruption. As a student of Plato I consider the Founding Fathers to be our philosopher kings. They did a great job of setting up this Republic, but as Benjamin Franklin said, it’s up to us to keep it. The “system”  will not make us honest, good people. They cannot somehow guarantee that we are going to elect honest, good rulers who will care about us or give a damn about the Constitution. They can’t prevent people from being misled by demagogues and would-be tyrants into war and destruction.

Report this

By samosamo, July 19, 2008 at 11:08 am Link to this comment

The 2 party system is and isn’t good. But in the final choice every voter is casting a vote for who they believe is best to not just keep a well oiled society running but, and most especially for these days, but to prevent or correct the damage and inequaties of the current condition of our elected government.
The 2 party system isn’t really broken and indeed it basically it is not just a 2 party system as independents and libertarians and greens can be on a ballot. But every thing is broken down to this or that or yea/nay or him/her or just the basic black and white decision.
What is broken or corrupted is the information system and the idea of not what one is voting for or against but ‘who’ will get a vote or not, is based on a personality, not a real issue. Sort of like the american idol crap dished out which is not unlike the primaries where the msm does a relatively quick paring down of who are to be the main contenders in a race for the nomination. And then it is the basic race for a personality or celebrity if you will.
I would think I am wrong on this but maybe not, and that is after all the hoopla of primaries and election racing is boiled down to election day I would think especially in this modern computer age that the day I go vote to try and pick who I would rather hold office or who shouldn’t hold office but maybe because I can’t find a suitable place to have the information about canidates and their history of position and votes on the real issues before me and a list of contributors to their campaigns before me, I wind up guessing as to who is best. And in any election I don’t think, I KNOW, the ballot should have ‘INCUMBENT’ beside the name of any current holder of office to clarify the one running to keep his/her position and the ones wanting to take it from him/her. This is information that is needed to make an informed vote. Just pulling the ‘all dem or all repub’ lever is not the best way to vote.
And this whole system would still be totally worthless unless the government could see that the integrity of the election is not compromised, as I am sure to most people’s shocked and awed realization in 2000 and 2004 where the winner of both of those elections were not allowed to take office because of illegal appointment and voter fraud so blatant that I still shake my head that it appears no one was or ever will be held accountable for the subversion of those 2 elections. THIS CAN VERY WELL HAPPEN AGAIN!!!!! because there are a desparate people that do not want to give up power and ‘tricks’ are the name of the game when trying to retain power.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 19, 2008 at 10:39 am Link to this comment

Re jackpine savage, July 19 at 6:29 am #


Until recently (and still in some quarters), Bill Clinton was a Democratic hero.  Yet i challenge anyone to find a ‘liberal’ policy/success of that administration.
—————————————————————————-
OK, here’s one: Clinton raised the tax rate on upper-income voters, thus reinvigorating the economy, creating millions of jobs, and balancing the budget. Don’r forget that after 1994 Clinton had to work with a Republican congress. Under these circumstances, he did a very creditable job. If Obama only gets the tax rate back to where it was under Clinton, it will be a progressive victory.

Report this

By cyrena, July 19, 2008 at 8:46 am Link to this comment

By thebeerdoctor, July 19 at 6:44 am #
•  “The idea that because you supported a candidate who happened to be in a particular party means you must support whoever that party selects is preposterous. A responsible person makes a decision as to who they think would be best for the job.”

I agree with this beerdoc. But that isn’t what KISS was suggesting. He/she started off with a preposterous claim, which the rest of you have supported, and it is a disingenuous supposition at best, and a hypocritical one at worst. The claim is that the so-called two-party system must be destroyed, and then he proceeded to say, ‘vote for Kucinich’. My point in reminding that Kucinich is a democrat, was primarily to make it clear how incredibly stupid the ideology is that supports destroying the system, (throwing the baby out with the bath water) and to point out that everybody who is connected with one or the other parties is NOT ‘the same’, which is the straw portion of the argument that many of you have in advocating the destruction of it.

YOU didn’t get it. And THAT doesn’t surprise me. But, YOU aren’t the only person reading and posting here.

For the record, (again, for the umpteenth time) I *MYSELF* supported Dennis Kucinich before he dropped out of the contest. And I CONTINUED to support him (with what little money I could manage) in his effort to hold on to his seat in the Congress, even though I am a native resident of California, NOT Ohio. I did that because it is critical to keep people like Dennis Kucinich in a position to do the work that they can and are willing to do.

You don’t get that either.

You also refuse to acknowledge something that is basically human nature, and is more the reality of what has been plastered across these forums. The claim from everyone of you that the ‘system’ is the problem, is intellectually dishonest, because it is NOT ‘the system’ that you dislike. You dislike the PEOPLE who are a part of the system, and you only dislike some of them. Other’s, you’re perfectly comfortable with, and you proceed to make heroes out of them. The very same thing that you accuse others of doing.

Again, this is human nature. I despise the current collection/cabal that has exploited a decent and serviceable system, and used it to orchestrate what has become the Greatest Heist of at least the past 3 Centuries. The damage has been incalculable. But that’s not where you’re at – not at all. You’re focused on your dislike of certain individuals who make up the system, and your dislike is not a matter of logic or reason that can be supported by facts in evidence, or their related context.

Bottom line, your shit is raggedy, and your arguments are lame, because opinions are SUBjective to the facts, which are OBjective. You don’t know how to connect them. So, all of your arguments go in dead end directions. That’s the crux of your activities. Each of your efforts puts you at yet another dead end, because you’re starting off without an acceptance of the basic premise.

Meantime, I’m bored with this, because your vision hasn’t yet been improved. If you can’t see, you can’t keep up. No point holding everybody else back just because of it. If you can get individual help from a vision specialist, then that might allow you to gain some of the same benefits that others with better vision can utilize. If not, that’s just the way it is.

On a much larger focus, and a larger view for all of those who can see and think at the same time, I thought this talk from Al Gore was excellent, so I’m sharing it here.


Al Gore speaks.

Watch this speech. Get the big picture.
It’s truly a remarkable speech. Be sure to see it for yourself:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3945&id=13269-9244030-m9.46Qx&t=3

Wecansolveit.com

Report this

By yours truly, July 19, 2008 at 7:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Only A Peaceful Revolution Can Save The World

“Based on?”

“Perpetual war + global warming = Doomsday”

“A revolution attained how?”

“We elect a president who’s going to end the Iraq War, negotiate with Iran plus turning things around here at home.”

“Failing in that?”

“A mass uprising.”

“Either way what sort of world?”

“It’ll be up to us.”

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, July 19, 2008 at 6:44 am Link to this comment

The idea that because you supported a candidate who happened to be in a particular party means you must support whoever that party selects is preposterous. A responsible person makes a decision as to who they think would be best for the job.

Report this

By jackpine savage, July 19, 2008 at 6:29 am Link to this comment

The problem of being centrist is the skewing of left and right in this country.  And that skewing is the result of associating left and right with Democrat and Republican…or rather starting from party affiliation and moving to political philosophy.

Let me put it this way.  Many people think that they are conservative because they vote Republican, rather than the other way around.  This allows the parties to manipulate the voter.  In effect making the voter’s political philosophy beholden to the party (and its politicians) rather than the other way around.

This effect is pronounced with the Republicans…what “conservative” in their right mind could vote for a man like G.W. Bush? (btw, this was Ron Paul’s point throughout the nomination campaign) But - oddly enough - it is even more pronounced with Democrats.  Until recently (and still in some quarters), Bill Clinton was a Democratic hero.  Yet i challenge anyone to find a ‘liberal’ policy/success of that administration.

Again, this is about the parties making the voter beholden to them rather than the other way around.  And it works, mostly by politicians/pundits concentrating the voters’ mental energy on hot-button issues like abortion, et al. when, realistically, those issues are not the most important for the functioning of the nation.  G.W. Bush can preside like the second coming of Woodrow Wilson and LBJ combined, but so long as he’s for guns and against abortion he gets to remain “conservative”.

I would vote for the true centrist candidate regardless of party, but true centrism cannot happen in the current climate.  And a true, centrist candidate doesn’t stand a chance in this country.  Perhaps we have succumb to our national fascination for “winners”.  Too few of us yearn for equitable solutions to problems; we concentrate on our side winning…which leads to attempts to shove ideology down the national throat…which creates a backlash…which leaves us swinging violently between “left” and “right”. (except that the definitions are so skewed)  And then we find ourselves in a situation where the political parties are equivalent to our favorite sports teams, and everything is subsumed to “winning”.

Have the American people gained anything through the victories of “left” or “right” since Nixon created our current political playing field?

Report this

By cyrena, July 19, 2008 at 6:12 am Link to this comment

By VietnamVet, July 18 at 9:47 am

Part 1 of 2

•  “ The nation will be dealing with Bush’s recklessness and near criminal actions for years to come. Obama right or left? Doesn’t bug me at all!  Obama right or left?... Doesn’t bug me at all!”

I ditto this sentiment VV, just as I do the excellent comments by PurpleGirl in #169856.

I do find however, that there is a dilemma in naming or labeling a position as right, left, or center, as least as it has been subscribed in the past. (and of course some folks here know that it is a pet peeve of mine, the subject of multiple rants)

I believe that any person who claims to be ‘in the game’ of politics, (and like Purple Girl, I’ve been watching this closely for a long time now) needs to be able to MOVE in *ANY* direction, if they are to be effective. He or she needs to be able to *anticipate* to the degree possible, where to move next. He or she needs to be able to bend and contort and squeeze through obstacles, and find other openings where there appear to be none, creating them when necessary.

If we can use the sports metaphor or analogy as ITW has, we should add to it. He speaks of a momentum in football. I understand that, as it is ONE component. But let’s talk about tennis for a moment. How effective is a tennis player who stands in the ‘middle’ and doesn’t move back, forward, right, left, or diagonally? Should the player just anticipate that his/her opponent is going to simply lob the ball directly at his/her center position, so that he/she can conveniently lob it right back? I think not. I think we all know that any effective master at that game, and to be prepared to move all over the court, anticipating, to the extent that they can, where the ball will come from and be directed toward, in the next play. Each player has only a LIMITED amount of control over how the opponent will respond.

Most observers (including the pundits) aren’t looking at anything other than the player(s). They aren’t paying any attention to the surrounding conditions. They don’t see the sun that is hitting the court at that particular moment in time, from the same spot that the player(s) is seeing it, and they have no clue as to how that affects the player(s) choice in their response. They don’t look at the short term consequences or the long term consequences, because as a general rule, they don’t even know how to separate them, at least not conceptually. They don’t understand even the very important point that Obama made in his most recent speech, about strategies and tactics. They don’t understand how long term and short term goals are connected to strategies and tactics. They don’t get that survival depends more on flexibility than it does on maintaining a hard stance and refusing to move from it as conditions change. And they don’t get that changing conditions are NOT totally controllable. There is always an element that cannot be controlled, and the acceptance of that must be factored into any sustainable strategy.

In the reality of the politics that make up the structure of our particular democracy, my career experience in flight planning makes a perfect analogy. I despised my former manager and instructor in this effort, because he was a despicable person in general. However, that didn’t make at least some of his stuff correct. So I will credit him with the advice or concept, (at least as it applied to flight planning) that any plan that one might put forth, had to be done in light of the fact that it would *NOT* be ‘the only airplane in the sky.’ If one were planning to navigate from point A to point B, and NOT consider that their would be other airplanes sharing the same space, with the objective of doing the same thing, (though those points may represent different locations for each one of them) then one could make a plan quite easily.

Report this

By cyrena, July 19, 2008 at 6:10 am Link to this comment

Part 2 of 2

This has everything to do with the FISA decision, and PurpleGirl lays that out here, (but the average person isn’t even focusing on this)

•  “…As for wiretapping- disappointing, but there is a Loophole which was not closed, criminal prosecution- a far better form of justice. If this bill was not passed that would have been closed up in the next bill…”

This is where the game is more chess than tennis or football. There are more than a few things to consider here. First, Obama was not and is not the only airplane in the sky. There are 535 members of Congress. He could have voted no on this legislation, and it wouldn’t have made a damn bit of difference, because only a handful of other members of Congress did. NOT enough to prevent the passage, anymore than it could prevent the language of the bill as written in the House.

On the other hand, the language of this particular bill, (despicable as it may be) DOES - still leave OPEN – the possibility of criminal prosecution of those who have broken these laws. That includes the telecoms, and the administration that instructed them to break the laws in the first place. And Purple Girl is ALSO correct in her wise assessment of future consequences. Had THIS imperfect legislation NOT passed, one can damn well better believe that the next piece of legislation would have removed that possibility as well, even if it managed to restore the civil/monetary accountability.

I take exception with Sirota’s language in claiming that Obama ‘backed’ this legislation. He did not ‘back’ it. He didn’t write it. He made it a point to say that it was not what *he* wanted. However, a wise person understands that it is not always possible to control the cards we are dealt, and so it is far more important to play those cards that we are dealt, in a manner that is the most efficiently effective. The FISA bill doesn’t make or break the Constitution. It is one element. And, as you’ve stated, there is a whole hell of a lot more to deal with, in repairing the damage that the Criminals have inflicted on our nation. Navel gazing FISA at this point is of little value, especially if we do it at the risk of ignoring everything else.

Report this

By pro choice lib, July 19, 2008 at 4:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Thank you Mr. Sirota.  We call it Propaganda at our home, too.  We never refer to it as “news”.

It amazes me that people still turn the TV on after all that has happened.

Report this

By samosamo, July 19, 2008 at 12:07 am Link to this comment

You bet, because centrist to me begins to mean more and more that as the pundtificators pound their dribble out against what the ‘progressives’ have to say which as far as I can say, is intelligent thought about serious issues but because the pundticatores get their word in it tends to sort of negate an intelligent thought of converse by progressives, and it winds up being a war of words that leaves just about everything at a standstill which is a perfect neocon tactic to ‘appear’ to have the upper hand.
I do hope that some of the news coming to us is true and that Iraq will be able to kick america out of their country and talks with Iran will quiet the need to just go bomb em for the hell of it. And if we wised up and kicked aipac out, maybe gain some coheirency(sp) in our country. (I know, I know more words)

Report this

By cyrena, July 18, 2008 at 11:39 pm Link to this comment

Beerdoc..

“The real question” about whether or not Kucinich supports Sen Obama sounds an awful lot like fluffy rhetoric to me. No doubt just another *subjective* STRAW to weave into a straw man basket.

I’m inclined to suggest that the real ‘questions’ remain unanswered because they remain unconsidered, even by excellent journalists such as David Sirota. In this essay, he alleges the same accusations as the rest of you. In short, he sites ‘moves’ to this direction or the other, (by Obama) without explaining the so-called ‘move’, while he mixes metaphors, just as do all of those who believe that left, right, and center can be explained in terms of legislative language.

That is the case with the FISA vote, where he fails to consider the context of all other votes. That is the case with NAFTA, which is respective to trade, and Obama has consistently said that he’s not promising to eliminate trade entirely, (and anybody who expects that is deranged). That is the case with Iraq, where the Senator’s position has always been to end the war there, and there is no indication that he’s changed from that position either.

Whether or not Dennis Kucinich supports Obama (and he has given indications in the past that he DID, at least by his actions at the Iowa primary) is NOT the ‘real’ question any more than who supported Hillary v Obama as the primaries continued.

My own point was the reality of the fact that anybody who claims to support Kucinich cannot also claim to be unsupportive of the system that includes a party of Democrats.

It’s an unsustainable position to try use subjective ideology to stand up an objective claim. Dennis Kucinich is a member of the Democratic Party, albeit a progressive Democrat, who is true to the ideals of democracy. As far as I’m concerned, so is Obama. One cannot claim, (as KISS does) to reject a political system that is made up of Democrats and Republicans, and then claim to support a member that belongs to one of those parties. It’s a contradiction.

So the ‘real *answer*’ it that KISS and you and obviously many others, *do* support (subjectively, emotionally, and ideologically) Congressman Kucinich, -who is a member of the Democratic Party – and you do *not* support, (because you ‘dislike’ – subjectively, emotionally, and ideologically) Senator Obama, who is also a member of the Democratic Party.  That’s the real deal, and calling it anything else is lame effort to support a disingenuous position.

Now THAT would be ‘keeping it simple’.

Report this

By JimM, July 18, 2008 at 4:26 pm Link to this comment

Amen to Vietnam Vet’s post. We also need to keep the pressure on Barack now and when he is pres to truly represent we the people by taking aggressive action on sustainable energy, Iraq, the economy and the national morale. Restoring the US’s reputation will be formidable for him as well. The challenges are many as caused by the Bushies, requiring vigorous intervention  
not suited to an older man like Mr McSame.
I went to Barack’s website after his shameful fisa vote and registered my profound disappointment. We all need to let him know that our opinions matter.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, July 18, 2008 at 3:26 pm Link to this comment

The real question is not whether or not Representative Kucinich is in the Democratic party, but whether or not he supports Senator Obama.

Report this

By cyrena, July 18, 2008 at 2:52 pm Link to this comment

“The two party system must be abolished, and no better way than to write in Dennis Kucinich
for president.”

Does anybody wanna take a second, (you included KISS) to realize that this constant call for abolishing a two party system is nothing more than bullshit?

Let me ask you KISS, what the hell party do you think Dennis Kucinich belongs to?

Report this

By VietnamVet, July 18, 2008 at 9:47 am Link to this comment

Irrespective of the direction folks see Obama moving, there is no doubt in my mind that he will be better than the trash we have had in the White House for the last seven plus years! Most of us are well aware of what Bush and his sleazy bunch have DONE TO this nation in the name of “national security.” The list is mind boggling and in times past would have had him in the impeachment docks long ago. The nation will be dealing with Bush’s recklessness and near criminal actions for years to come. Obama right or left? Doesn’t bug me at all!

Report this

By Bret, July 18, 2008 at 9:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

David, David, David…

Wake up and smell the zeitgeist… get a real good whiff. Put the pieces together… see the bigger picture.

What is the percentage of the Establishment press that consistently recognizes and reflects what mainstream American opinion really is? What kind of press produces this level of manipulation? How far may have this media influence over the years actually shifted the mainstream opinion of America—further to the right—changing what IS centrist? Aren’t governmental agencies supposed to insure that our democracy is not being manipulated: that the press, for example, reflect the full range of American opinion? What does not doing so say about the Government, and the FCC? What does this say about the Establishment’s respect for American opinion and democracy? What does this say about the validity of our democracy and our government?

“[N]ot all politicians and pundits are completely ignorant of life outside the palace walls”. Huh? I think VERY FEW of them are unaware of what mainstream American opinion is; they just pretend otherwise, for the reasons you gave.

So please, put the pieces all together. What kind of media system are we living under? What kind of political system? Can you describe that in a way that will really convey its true character, of the military-industrial-media-government complex that we are living in—that reality?

Report this

By P. T., July 18, 2008 at 9:26 am Link to this comment

The so-called center means the ruling class consensus (importantly including the rich).  The rich own and run the media, fund the politicians and think tanks, and so forth.

Report this

By Tim Gatto, July 18, 2008 at 6:42 am Link to this comment

“Day after day, smiling anchormen, blow-dried correspondents and silver-tongued congressmen follow the Big Lie theory of indoctrination, taking to our televisions, radios and newspapers insisting that crazy is normal, the majority is the minority and—most important—the fringe is the “center.” This is no accident.”

Unless the American people start to inform themselves by going online and discovering news that is not force-fed by the Military Industrial Complex, we’ll sink like a rock. People also need to become engaged and part of the equation instead of standing on the sidelines decrying it.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 18, 2008 at 6:07 am Link to this comment

Sad but true article by David Sirota, at least he explains the nonsense we see happening as the ship seems to keep listing before sinking.  Congress,  peoples last hope, keeps playing the fiddle while America burns.  We know reason is off the table, so we see absent accountability.  For what it is worth I cannot add to the posts below you folks are on the marks.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, July 18, 2008 at 5:15 am Link to this comment

The real question is: Are you really sure, you really want to be President? What Gore Vidal has called the zinc lining to this dark cloud—economic collapse—is just beginning. There is an insightful article by William Greider on this. I think this is the link:
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/91456

Report this

By KISS, July 18, 2008 at 5:15 am Link to this comment

In the finest Lieberman mode Obama is another pandering suck-up to Corporate Amerika. Dimmos and repugs are just more same ol same ol.
The two party system must be abolished, and no better way than to write in Dennis Kucinich
for president.
What in the hell have you to lose? We had lost the white house years ago…try Clinton or Bush what is the real difference?
But Pablum journalism and slick Madison Ads assure us of more lying, cheating and graft from government.
Thanks David for seeing the truth on both sides.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 18, 2008 at 4:50 am Link to this comment

Obama is nowhere near the center. He has drifted so far to the right that he’s bumping into McCain and Bush. 

Apparently what the people think or want does not matter to him.  He is answering to a higher power. His corporate benefactors.

Report this
Purple Girl's avatar

By Purple Girl, July 18, 2008 at 4:31 am Link to this comment

Same Shit different year.
I’ve been watching this political game paly out for the last 18 months. Obama Is NOT Running to the middle! He has constantly said ‘We will not get out of Iraq as carelessly as we got in’.
As for wiretapping- disappointing, but there is a Loophole which was not closed, criminal prosecution- a far better form of justice. If this bill was not passed that would have been closed up in the next bill. ‘Revenge, a dish best served COLD’
Gun control- even as a person who thinks handguns only kill people, we must reserve theRight to own one, other wise the criminals will be the only ones with them.
NAFTA- only became a real problem when BushCo started allowing Corps to gut our country through deregulations.
I voted for Kucinich in the Primary (rigged in MI for Hillary)- I do NOT see Obama changing any of his stances.
I have been disgusted by the so called ‘Lefts’ complicity with the undermining of this candidate. Haven’t they seen the handbook tactic before- Divide & conquer?The more the Left oppose every little thing Obama does, Mac gets one step closer to winning.Then again having been a Liberal all my life- it is more likely these are not ‘Lefties’ at work at all- but Posers.Kind of like Pelosi, Reid, Clinton,Feinstein… claiming to be Democrats.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 18, 2008 at 3:17 am Link to this comment

Obama’s move to the “Center” is the most disturbing pattern—the FISA vote was disgusting.  I don’t get it—does he WANT to lose the election?

In football games they talk about the elusive “momentum”.  In elections, that “Mo” is inevitably the driving force. If Obama’s continued pandering to the Right goes on and his “mo” continues to be lost, McSame may pick it up and end up as our next dictator.

This is one time CLEARLY where the candidate’s job is to ENERGIZE HIS BASE!  And that base is the Democratic party and independents who want the War ended, the destruction of our rights ended, the lack of deregulation ended, and the bailout of mega-corps ended.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, July 18, 2008 at 1:25 am Link to this comment

Thank you David Sirota.

This is precisely my assessment of what’s happening.  I was so OUTRAGED that Obama voted FOR the FISA legislation.  This is absolutely contradictory to the center and nowhere NEAR what the masses endorse.  Rarely…rarely have I through the years found someone who agrees with this “spying on us” garbage irregardless of their political affiliation.

Currently, I live in a more republican area, but the average joe republican does not endorse spying.  No way.  And average joe libertarians by and large are even MORE outraged by this than others.

Yet, after the passage of this legislation and shortly before, most “news” articles were touting Obama’s “centrism”.  For days I roamed around the net stunned by this mantra.  Yet, overnight… a plethora of articles “surfaced” attempting to convince the masses that this was simply “a move to the center”.  It was everywhere.  AGAIN, I was outraged.  This was ridiculous… and EVERYONE was spewing it…it had to be deliberate.
   
And what the hell was congress doing when they voted our rights away?  This was a blantant and direct assault upon the liberties guaranteed to the people, fought for, and contained in our constitution!

On top of that, Obama is now attempting to convince us that we should get out of Iraq and engage more fully in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Of course, since he’s installed the crazy war-mongering Clinton crowd of foreign policy “experts” or more accurately fanatics, should we be surprised?

Because above all else, apparently Obama feels we should keep killing people to catch the bogey-man Osama bin Ladin.  You know, this ONE man who is terrorizing the ENTIRE WORLD with his rag-tag following…..  does this story sound familiar..?

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
 
Right 3, Site wide - Exposure Dynamics
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook