At the risk of sounding like the far right America- and Constitution-hating/ignorant masses, I want you to know how much I appreciate the thoughts of some educated and compassionate Americans.  Of course, the Europeans have a clearer idea of the sleaze into which we have fallen.  They have the truth given them by their Media.  We have the Murdoch-ized version of PRAVDA. 

In the Boston Globe today, the freedom riders (wonder if they knew how much their boats resembled the original ones from Europe in 1947, as Israel was formed) are described as ‘being supported by Hamas, dedicated to the destruction of Israel’ with no quotes surrounding the last phrase.  This was supposedly an objective reporting; instead it was merely objectionable.

It’s not just our severely deficient educational system, our materialistic culture that’s swamping us, taking us away from ‘government by the people’.  It’s our intelligence being dedicated to the pursuit of pleasure, development of war machines, and more stuff.  How much of your working day in corporate America is spent using your intelligence to devise ways to circumvent safety or quality means of production?  I see it all around me: called ‘cost-reduction’, among other lying words of circumvention.

As an atheist, my Bible learning days still haunt me: we have become both Sodom and Gomorra, and that evil had nothing to do with sexual proclivities…but the nation-killing practice of lying and lying to ourselves about lying.

You are a legal scholar, Cyrena, and believe in the effectiveness of Constitituional government.  You want to return to the operative from of the American Constitution of former days.  I suggest to you that you can’t go home again. 

Just as the military dictatorship of Rome during empiralism could not return the Republic of former days, and the rule of the great landowners in the Roman Senate, the neocons under Bush has fundamentally transformed and perverted the American power system so that return to former days is impossible.

He has transformed the US power system into a Constitutinal police state.  This was not done consistent with Constitutional norms, but it can be.  It would be possible, under the Constitution, to pass laws that, say, would put most people in prison, the remaider voting in the ususal way with the usual effect.  This could not be done in practice not because it would violate the legalities of the Constitituion, but because the people would not permit it over historical time.

But scholars and the learned have a great respect for what is written down on pieces of paper.  Fine.  Gore Vidal suggested in 1992 to the National Press Club that Article 5 of the American Constitution mandates a way to change it.  Right wing loonies got most of the states to call for such a Constitutional Convention to pass a balanced budget. Could not the progressive popultion try to do the same?

I think it is a good idea.  The masses of the American population could get together and argue as to how to change the Constitution to serve THEIR interests rather than the interests of oppressive power.  This would concentrate the attention of the Amerian ruling class and the neocons that now dominate it in both parties. 

As a legal scholar, you might have some useful suggestions.  What do you think?

Folktruther, August 22 at 6:33 pm #
•  “I don’t doubt your sincerity, Cyrena, or that of Kucinich in desiring American democracy and Constitutional governement.  Personally I happen to believe American democracy and Constitutional government is a fraud on the Amerian people.  Indeed, that American ideology is a tissue of deceit from beginning to end. “
As a scholar, I agree with you in theory Folktruther. I have every reason to question the legitimacy of whether or not the American system is a ‘democracy’ or even if such a true and pure ‘democracy’ can even be achieved at this point. I have far more confidence in the effectiveness of a Constitutional Government however, and I see the possibility of returning some balance to the entire operation, if we cam simply resume using that as our operational system again. In other words, the ideology of American democracy may be vague, and it has certainly become very twisted, (or..inverted as Wolin would say) but the practicality, or what I call the ‘mechanics’ of constitutional government can be acquired, because the framework/blueprint is in place, and allows for adjustments. It’s actually quite a remarkable structure for that very reason.
I find it odd that you would claim no faith in either the ideology or the practicality/mechanics, and yet still choose to participate in it, by voting for *anyone*. I’d go so far as to say that is quite a contradiction.
I like Cynthia McKinney, and have admired her own commitment to the same. She has not however, been committed ‘enough’ to even ask for my vote, or to even show up in my own state, to introduce herself to the citizens here, most of whom have never heard of her. Moreover, her candidacy, (such as it is) can even be interpreted by those who DO know who she is, as a treason of sorts. When Cynthia was in the Congress, (before her own district voted her out) she was largely ignored by most of her colleagues, and even repressed and oppressed by others…pecifically Nancy Pelosi, But even then, she DID have the unconditional support of a few very loyal Congressmembers; one of whom has been Barbara Lee, who stood with Ms McKinney when she was under a created political firestorm/attack. Maybe you are unfamiliar with Ms. Lee?
“….Interview With Rep. Barbara Lee
Friday 11 July 2008
by: William Rivers Pitt, t r u t h o u t | Report
•  “Barbara Lee (D-California) remains stoutly determined to drag her Congressional colleagues, as well as the Bush administration, away from continuing to support the long list of foreign and domestic policy decisions that have damaged the Unites States at home and abroad. In this video, she sits with William Rivers Pitt to discuss several of these issues in detail.”

http://www.truthout.org/article/interview-with-rep- barbara-lee

Now I’m sure that Ms. Lee would continue to support her former colleague, if she were still in the Congress. She isn’t, and like Ms. Lee and the millions of other democrats that wish to see a return to constitutional government and sane policy, both foreign and domestic, I’ll be supporting Senator Obama for president.

I’m guessing that Ms. McKinney (and Ralph Nader) have some ‘purpose’ in mind in their respective candidacies, but I don’t know what it could be, in practical terms. Are they (and by extension…are you) supporting or representing something OTHER than a return to Constitutional government? Is there something new and different (an alternative in other words) that either of them propose to that format? If so, what is it?

If NOT, then the presumption would have to be, (since Ms. McKinney has not explained this in-depth) that she’s OK with a Constitutional format. (she’s using the established system to launch whatever her purpose is). So if that can be presumed, what evidence do you have that Ms. McKinney is in any way better prepared or equipped to provide that than Senator Obama?
I sense a measure of hypocrisy in your position Folktruther.

democracy has become the most despicable name on the planet as it is run in the USA; every other nation knows what goes on in our country but the people; prime ex: environmentalists & others extremely knowledgeable re toxins & poisons being forced on the public unknowingly as the FDA is quite simply a “screen” to APPEAR to be doing something it is NOT; the death rate of babies & children is higher here than in any other country in the world; it is DUE to toxins; so: our Gov presents ta da “20-20” story telling that yes indeed the death rate is higher here than in any other country HOWEVER they “show” it as being due NOT to the TRUTH: but to LIES: of not good prenatal care; pregnancy by 12 year olds; go to http://www.time.com; see where Georgia went into Odessa; then look at all the news given out by USA saying “Russia” aggressively attacked like Hitler did; HITLERS name is being used by our Gov to combat the TRUTH that Hitler & how he did it & OUR Gov & how they are doing it today; trying to mislead, misdirect, detract, etc; LIES, DECEPTION, all harm to the people to the pocketbooks of a few; and laughing their rears off at how stupid the people are not to see thru it; watched them doing it folks; http://www.naturalnews.com will give you information; before saying THIS is wrong: you can confirm it on website after website after website; might also want to know a natural substance 10,000 xs stronger than chemo without side effects SAT ON rather than give to public cuz they couldn’t duplicate it & get big bucks on.

I don’t doubt your sincerity, Cyrena, or that of Kucinich in desiring American democracy and Constitutional governement.  Personally I happen to believe American democracy and Constitutional government is a fraud on the Amerian people.  Indeed, that American ideology is a tissue of deceit from beginning to end.

I think that that major historical problem at the present time in history is to mobilize the population against the neocons that control both parties.  Along with Anarcissie I am supporting Cynthia McKinney on the chance that it will help mobilize the Amerocam population against the American power system.

This can be done in California, where the election will probably not be close, without cost to Obama.

For the record folktruther, I am ‘so’ progressive that my original hope for the next administration was one with Dennis Kucinich in the Oval office. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for Congressman Kucinich and what I have noted of his contribution to our society-at-large, and his courage in remaining consistent to the concept of democracy and a Constitutional form of government. Maybe you were unaware of that, and maybe not. But I’ve made that clear enough in previous comments. Since you’re new here, maybe you weren’t aware.

That said, I’m not ‘hung up’ on Obama. In fact, I reserved any opinion at all for the first several months of his Candidacy, just to give myself time to observe, research, and basically see what the guy was about. I’ve read both of his books, (purchased the 1st one myself, and “The Audacity of Hope” was a gift from my sibling) and I’ve even had time to sit in on a couple of his lectures at U of Chicago, because I was particularly interested in one course that he taught, which has since been added to the curriculum at my own institution. All of that said. I’ve been very impressed with him, because I know that he represents a larger portion of average America than many may be aware of. His background and life experience to this point, (including the wife/kids/parents/grandparents/education/blah, blah blah) is in fact very similar to my own. And like I said, not all that different from many Americans, of which you may not be aware.

Still, I observed as carefully as I could, because as a multi-racial person of color myself, I am naturally delighted at the progressive mentality that would allow for a black man to be accepted by such a large portion of the population, but learned long ago that just because a politician/baker/banker/doctor/lawyer/Indian chief happened to be black or any other person of color, didn’t necessarily mean that he or she represented my own interests, or even the interests of the greater good. (check out the despicably loathsome character represented in Clarence Thomas).  As I observed, I became more and more impressed. However, I always had one major fear for him, (which has since morphed into others) and it was that the political system could corrupt him, because politics in general, (and specifically US politics of the past few decades) can be very corrupting. It’s a nasty business, and one needs a very strong and unique character to survive it.

I do *not* always personally agree with what he comes up with, and I’ve voiced my complaints about some of this stuff quite vocally. I’ve said before, that I believe he could do far better in putting together a universal health care package, but I also know more of the realities of such than many people may be aware of. There is also no reason why Americans themselves cannot become involved in putting together something that they prefer, and then demanding that he do his part in implementing it. That is where the difference lies, because I’ve never expected the government or any ‘president’ to hand me anything more than the opportunities to accomplish whatever may be ‘accomplishable’ by anyone else under my own sweat. And, I believe that many American’s share that view.

So I’m not looking for a St. to be the President, and more than anything, I’m ‘hoping’ for some stability after 8 years of a total chaos and terror from this RADICAL authoritarian regime that has sucked the very life out of this nation. I’m sick of the drama, and it’s killing us –fast- and I have enough sense to know that collectively, we won’t survive this. Barack Obama is not the only person in the US capable of accomplishing a restoration to sanity and the rule of law. He IS however the only one with a chance to be elected who can do that. The alternative at this point, should be obvious. The final crash and then the burn.

I see, Cyrena, that you have a real progressive view but you have got hung up on Obama. If you have a strong stomach you might read his THE MENDACITY OF HOPE.  It was sent to me by a Dem macher to entice me out of my sinful ways.  I can’t find it here anywhere or I would quote you his sucking up to power and to Bush in a number of passages.

re: By Paolo, August 21 at 3:56 pm:

Congrats! You win the prize (which is the right to mutter, “I told you so,” as our ship of state capsizes and sinks…)!

Cyrena, this has been fun.  I’ll just say one more thing.  I quit my job and stole the guy’s mower (just between you and me) and I’m riding it to see my brother in PA.  Took a can of gas, too.

Folktruther,

Yes, indeed I do talk a lot, (or actually, I write a lot, but we’ll consider it the same thing.). And the length of life is pretty relative, me not having any crystal ball or anything. So, I’ll just keep on writing. Sometimes I even get paid for it.

You write quite a bit as well, and sometimes the same thing more than once, as you do here:
•  “Obama will lead the US to increased war abroad, heighten the possibility of thermonuclear war, and continue to transform the US into an impoverished police state. McCain will do it worse and faster.  This is not because either one wants to necessarily , but because historical forces drive them that way.”

That’s fine of course, since I’ve been known to repeat myself as well. But, I still reject this premise that Obama will lead the US to “increased” war, because you have no historical precedent for HIM that would lead anyone to consider that, and I do believe that Presidents can and should be more than slaves to history. In fact, I don’t believe ANYONE need be a slave to history. So, since everything he has publicly stated in the past 2 years at least, (not to mention his extensive authorship on a number of foreign policy issues) would actually convey the OPPOSITE of what you’re suggesting here, I’ll maintain my own analysis based on what I actually observe from him, and from what he says or writes.

I admit that I’m very concerned about the ‘historical forces’ of democrats that have attached themselves to his campaign since his win over Hillary in the primaries. I’m not the least bit comforted by the fact that Albright or Holbrook have departed the Clinton camp to join Obama’s. No. I sense a considerable dark cloud in them. I’d be far more comfortable if the Clintons and all of their associated political allies, (including the Republicans ones like McCain) were all quarantined. I mentioned this on another thread. I do not now, nor have I ever, considered Obama to be of the same ‘brand’ of Democrats as represented by the DLC, which is synonymous with the Clintons and others…including the infamous Blue Dog dems. (think LIEberman, and how fast he turned. (IF it was even a ‘turning’) It was just 8 years ago that he was almost the Democratic VP. Of course there’s no reason for me to assume that he could ever have created the damage that Cheney has as VP, but that isn’t a surprise about Cheney, and never was. I KNEW what was coming with that. Still, the whole thing is scary. Hopefully I’ve lost a bit of my naiveté since.

Anyway, in that respect, I understand why many posters here don’t see a huge difference in the political parties, even though there ARE very clear traditional differences. Still, I have to allow that at least a portion of the dems, (and that would include the Clintons) have almost zero difference in their connections to the corporate oligarchy. Hillary, Madeline Albright, and Slick Willey himself, are pretty much the same as repugs as far as I’m concerned, and Rodham is probably even more hawkish that hubby. So, if we were to listen to these new so-called ‘advisers’ to Obama’s campaign, and presume that he was listening to them as well, there would be a cause for concern. However, until I see some signs of that, I’m gonna go with what he has said and written himself. I’m inclined to interpret what he says and does in any given situation at pretty much the face value of the real politick. In other words, I have every reason to assume that he means what he says, and says what he means, so I don’t attach any other interpretations to it by embellishment. I also see that a problem for a lot of folks, since there ARE issues that he does NOT address. He won’t do a black and white commitment to issues that are in flux, dependent on forces of which he has limited control, or on which he has not been thoroughly briefed, and able to evaluate on his own. That’s a problem for many, and so they just make up their own crystal ball interpretations.

II

Now I do agree with this part of what you suggest..

•    “The noted collapse specialist, Dmitry Orlov, was an eyewitness to the Soviet collapse and maintains that the Russian people were better prepared than are the people the US at the present time. An ideology that unites the population against the neocon power system would assist Americans to build anew as the neocons drive the American people and polity into the ground.”

I think this Orlov fellow is correct, and while I’ve never even heard of him, he would be someone I might like to read, because I’m positive that Americans aren’t even close to being prepared at this point. In this case, historical factors were helpful to the Russian people, at least in terms of preparedness. Americans (as sad as it makes me) don’t have a clue. If American’s don’t realize after 8 years of horrific decline, that we are effectively a police state with a flat line economy and inflation that is about to equal Zimbabwe, then I doubt they’re ever gonna figure it out. There will continue to be small sections of the state that appear normal, and the elite will continue to flourish, (in those sections) while the masses are carefully hidden in huge ghettos, removed from ostensible view. There are DOZENS of examples of that all around the globe. But, most Americans never see that, so they won’t know…even after it hits them, since we’re already into that fall, and they haven’t seemed to notice yet.  (or, maybe I should say that they don’t know WHY).

But, that’s also the same reason why I don’t believe the rhetoric of this being a problem of a ‘two party’ structure. Theoretically, it ISN’T a two party structure. There are a dozen or more political parties operating in this country, and any of the actors can change at any time, just as we see them going from Dem to Repug, or Repug to Independent, Green, or whatever else. Same as what I was saying earlier. Aligning oneself with a given political party doesn’t mean anything anymore. It just fools the people who can’t tell the difference. That’s why I long ago rejected the liberal/conservative labels, because they don’t mean anything. Neocons aren’t ‘conservative’. They’re RADICAL REACTIONARIES! Same with ‘left/right’. None of it applies any more, because all of that has been inverted or totally flipped over.

By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, August 21 at 2:07 pm #
Hey Cyrena, I’ve been waiting by the phone for a call from Barack to speak at his convention.  I think I embody the perfect storm of anti entitled Republicans in America, you know, the WEP Social Security, the below min. wage job, highly educated and mowing lawns, etc., etc.
~~~~~~~
Ok Doc…important news update. I just spoke to him. (Barack) He’s been trying to reach you. (are you *sure* you were waiting by the phone, or is this one of the mowing days, and maybe you had the earplugs in?) No matter. He asked me to get a message to you, (I guess he’s out of talk minutes on his blackberry or something) to tell you to show up, at the convention. He suggested it might be good to just ride the mower to Denver, and to bring all of your paperwork; diplomas, pay stubs, tax returns, (or rather receipts for tax donations to the wealthy- oh never mind, they don’t give us any receipts).  He sai it’s up to you whether or not you wanna reveal the source of your $1.75/hr pay.
Now my professional advice on that, would be to go ahead and reveal it, admitting that it’s from an off-shore account, and that you don’t even know exactly which of the most corrupt republican regime in the history of the world is responsible. I mean, if John McCain can’t keep track of how many houses he owns, how’s an average citizen, (ever with a double PhD) supposed to track down the dealings of the nefarious underworld characters of the GOP?

So, not to worry. Your fellow democrats will understand perfectly, because we’re all in the same sinking boat.

OK..that’s the message. Can you swing by Southern Cal on your way back? I’d really love to check out your neighbor’s machine. Power everything!

Hi Ed Harges:

You are right that Democrats, historically, have a better record than Republicans at maintaining fiscal sanity. I haven’t seen Obama advocating for reduced government spending and balanced budgets, however. Of course, as a libertarian, I understand that the whole issue of “balanced budgets” is meaningless so long as the entire economy is held captive by a bunch of bandits known as the Federal Reserve, who have the power to create money out of thin air and have reduced the value of the dollar to barely five cents of the value it had when the bandits took over.

Regarding foreign policy, it seems you agree with me that a policy of non-interventionism is impossible, given the influence of an unnamed player. Gosh, I wonder if you’re referring to Israel? Do I get a prize if I guessed right?

Hey Cyrena, I’ve been waiting by the phone for a call from Barack to speak at his convention.  I think I embody the perfect storm of anti entitled Republicans in America, you know, the WEP Social Security, the below min. wage job, highly educated and mowing lawns, etc., etc. 

Can’t you just hear him:  “On my travels throughout this great, great land of ours, I remember Dr. Knowitall.  Let me tell you about my good friend, Dr. Knowitall…” 

If I didn’t have a sense of humor, John McCain and the Republicans would make me kill myself.

I echo Folktruther’s sentiments, that once again, thanks to our two party system we are fucked. unfortunatly, once again our only choice is do we want it fast, or slow. Do we want a boloney sandwich or a McD’s cheesburger? Either way, we will regret it.
Does anyone remember when both partys actually had dynamic, vibrant, intelligent candidates that would excite the elecorate? That would make you want to vote?
Yea, I couldn’t think of any either.
The closest I came was 1968. People on all sides were excited and engaged by the many polarizing candidates. Liberals loved Bobby, old guard dimmos swooned over HHH, Wallace appealed to the old south that wanted to once again succeed because of the civil rights act. And the “silent majority” believed that tricky Dicky would take us back to the good ol days of McCarthyism and Jim Crow.
Then the shooting started. The heard was thinned, and our 60’s guilt trip officially began under the criminal nazis in the Nixon white house.
Who would have ever thought that here in 2008, we would be longing for those thrilling days of yesteryear, when you knew good guys from the bad by the color of their hat.
But keep in mind, in 1968, despite those many compelling choices, we still picked the black hearted, black hatted Nixon.
Wonder what we’ll do this year?

My, you do talk a lot, Cyrena, or rather, what I meant to say, was that your analysis of political events is very comprehensive. life being so short and all, however, a little brevity might help the discorxe along.

Obama will lead the US to increased war abroad, heighten the possibility of thermonuclear war, and continue to transform the US into an impoverished police state. McCain will do it worse and faster.  This is not because either one wants to necessarily , but because historical forces drive them that way.

They do it differently. The Gops wanting to directly gut social security, the Dems rigging the inflation and growth statistics to erode it over time.  This was done by Greenspan under Clinton and carried over by the Bushites. 

The Dem leaders support neocon policies and are complicit enablers of the Gop neocons.  Under the guise of opposing them.

Pelosi opposes torture publically after being briefed by Bush and agreeing to it privately.  She and other Dem leaders fund the wars will bills in the Dem caucus and vote against the bills publically.  Both the Dems and Gops support neocon power privately and often oppose it publically.  This duplicity is built into the US power system as it degenerates historically.  The powerful lie to the people and the mass media repeats those lies as if they were true or reasonable.

Not that Obama has lied much.  He has been relatively frank about his right wing policies.  To sell out you have to have something to sell.  He just wants to be president and he must espouse policies that help him do so.  And he does.  And since the political consensus led by the ruling class is going continually to the right, Obama, to rule, must go along with it. 

As Paul Craig Roberts complains, he was an offical in the Reagan administrations and is now being attacked by right wing loonies as a dirty commie rat. My heart goes out to him.  Nixon would be too much of a leftist to now get elected, or even nominated in the Dem party.

As the power system and the Gop and Dem neocons go to the right, the population is dialectically going to the left.  They must develop an ideology that mobilizes them against BOTH the Dem and Gop neocons, and not be caught up in the sports contest aspects of the Dems vs the Gops. This is an historical transformation and can only be done over historical time. 

This would increase the population’s collapse preparedness.  The noted collapse specialist, Dmitry Orlov, was an eyewitness to the Soviet collapse and maintains that the Russian people were better prepared than are the people the US at the present time. An ideology that unites the population against the neocon power system would assist Americans to build anew as the neocons drive the American people and polity into the ground.  Especially if Obama or McCain lead the US into a thermonuclear war.  This would provide, in actual factual reality not deceptive rhetoric,  change that we could believe in.

As political scientists say, the rhetoric of candidacy diverges from the discourse of governance.  That means, as I don’t have to point out to a person of your obvious intellectual attainments, it doesn’t much matter a fuck what he says.  When he gets in office he’ll do much the same thing as McCain would, hopefully with more intelligence and restraint.

Scratch McCain and what do you get?  Look into the USS Forrestal, the way he reacts to relatives of Vietnam MIAs, the way he dumped his first wife.  His demeanor belies his volcanic temper.  His lack or loss of memory reveals a sered brain.  He says he had a drinking problem.  MMMMM.  Now, let’s see.  Who else comes to mind.  (Bush, for lack of anyone providing an accurate description, I can only describe him as an alcohol addled organisim, maybe completely devoid of any authentic human emotion.) McCain on the other hand is stale and soiled ambition, once roiled with alcoholism, now in full, white-knuckled surge.  He’d knok over an old lady in a wheel chair for the last seat on a bus.

All I can do is SIGH.

By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, August 20 at 5:40 am

Dr. Knowitall,

You made my day with this, even if I am just reading it,

•  “BTW, Cyrena, in response to your comment to me about the lawn mower in an archived thread, to supplement my WEP SS, I mow for a republican neighbor, using his rider and he pays me $1.75/hr.  He said it’d be more if I went faster and used my own machine. Incidently, my checks come monthly from an off-shore bank.  I’ve never laid eyes on the guy.  You should see the mower!  375 horse V-8.  Power everything.  2 cupholders.  Positraction.  ABS.  Runs on flex-fuel.  This guy is loaded. They say he married into money. Why do I always screw up?”

I love it! I’m still laughing.

What a state of affairs we have when a double PhD knowitall having to supplement his WEP SS with an hourly wage job that is less than a quarter of the already below poverty level minimum wage. But hell, with a machine like that, you’re probably lucky he’s not making you pay him!  Anyway, this is just too good.

I’m gonna see if I can find me a job cleaning somebody’s really huge mansion on the beach, in exchange for allowing me to live there. I considered hitting Oprah up, but her spread isn’t close enough to the beach. Besides, I prefer an arrangement like yours, where I never have to actually see the employer. She hangs around her own property too often. Besides, she’d probably expect me to cook too.

Too funny. Thanks for the lift.

re: By Paolo, August 21 at 4:55 am:

Paolo writes:

“All the Dem’s had to do was enunciate a clear, unequivocal foreign policy of nonintervention, and a domestic policy of fiscal responsibility. But they just couldn’t do it! “

Gee, Paolo; why was that so hard to do? Let’s look at this formula. It has two parts.

(1) Let’s take the second one first - “a domestic policy of fiscal responsibility”. Now clearly, the Democrats have no problem with announcing themselves in explicitly in favor of fiscal responsibility. They may favor this or that policy which entails spending government money, but at least they are not afraid to favor fiscal responsibility in principle. And they have the Clinton years in recent memory to prove that they are in fact the more fiscally responsible party. So this is not the locus of their biggest political impediment.

(2) Now let’s look at the other part of your successful policy formula: “a clear, unequivocal foreign policy of nonintervention”. No Democratic or Republican candidate would DARE announce himself or herself in favor of such a thing. This is important. While it’s OK at least in principle to favor fiscal responsibility, it’s political death to advocate even in principle a foreign policy of non-intervention.

And why is that, Paolo? What very powerful group dominates Congress and both political parties and makes damn sure that one particular foreign country’s expansionist interests are always central to US foreign policy, no matter how much it costs in US blood and treasure?

Paolo, the message can be clear, unequivocal and enunciated only when sufficient time is devoted to a substantive speech over the corporate controlled airwaves, which is rare.  In between, the PR industry takes hold, repackaging the issues, turning McCain’s vices into virtues, subliminally appealing to racism and fear.

The one fundamental truth about the corporate media propaganda programs that pass for news—the more you watch, the less you know.

The really sad aspect of this article is that the Democrats have been handed the potential of a stunning electoral landslide, and are on the verge of blowing it. Now, that takes talent.

What stands against the Republicans? An unpopular war, an economy in meltdown, a mortgage crisis, out of control federal spending—well, you get the idea.

All the Dem’s had to do was enunciate a clear, unequivocal foreign policy of nonintervention, and a domestic policy of fiscal responsibility. But they just couldn’t do it! It’s so difficult for politicians—liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican—to renounce the Ring of Power, isn’t it?

Mac is not a Republican, he is a Corporationist.
This tyrannical ‘PARTY’ has been whooping it up for 3 decades….Common threads-Cheney, Rummy Wolfie (and several others mainstays in Politics- from both sides)
Remeber when a Republican meant you were a ‘bean counter’ a lil tight with the purse? Remember when Republican meant you didn’t want to get involved in other countries squabbles,Remember when Republican meant the Gov’t stayed out of your business, and was only for managing the over all InterState connections and being a voice for these UNITED States (small Fed Gov’t) .Remeber when they wanted to lower federal taxes???
Seems this version is not only spend crazy, but loves to live on credit- OURS.
Seems this version wants to get into any playground fight that has anything to do with OIL
Seems this version whats to put ‘big Brother’ in every house
Seems this version does not realize that being a conglomerate of states, means we are a collective, but yet also autonomous
Seems this version is Hiring every two bit bum Corp to take over any and all functions IT was formed to manage for the states.
Seems this version has handed Corps their ‘Green Card’ as actual citizens- the Constitution & Bill of Rights now only extends to brick & Mortar.
Having a 2 party system would be an improvement..We ahve been under the Control & rule of only One party for decades- The Corporationist party.About as Interested in the people as China’s communist party.
One need only realize the ‘Double Speak ’ in this ‘off shore drilling ’ Scam to realize who Mac is working for. WE DO NOT OWN THE OIL COMING OUT OF THE GROUND NOW,AND WILL STILL NOT OWN IT WHEN THEY ALLOW THE OIL CORPS TO POACH ON MORE OF OUR LAND!
Until we reclaim our rights to our resources and energy we will NEVER be ‘Energy independent’

Well, your numbers are a bit off.  The highest polling I have seen has McCain at 43%, currently at 42%, which, despite all the negative ads is only a 2% increase over it was last June.  Obama has dropped from 48% to 45%.  These numbers are deceiving since they entail head-to-head competition.  When Nader and Barr are added to the mix, McCain’s number drops to 39%, expanding Obama’s lead.

The problem is a citizenry that is ignorant of “the real John McCain” and the agenda he represents.  If they could be made to understand, McCain’s numbers should resemble Bush’s approval rating of 28%.

And, of course, since McCain is not the sharpest tool in the shed, there is already the risk he will say something incredibly stupid, as occurred today when he agreed with a woman that we should reinstate the draft.

Re: Folktruther, August 20 at 9:20

•  “Scheer’s piece is exactly what is wrong with the mainstream truth.  It is true that McCain is a stupid old man whose worldview is warped by militarism and oppression.  But his policies and Obama’s are similar, because they are financed and supported in the media by the same power structure.”

~~~****~~~~~*****

Here we have another cruel irony, though admittedly it is missed by many, which is the cruel part of it. From my own view, Scheer is dead on here, but we’re missing it, and for the reasons he’s pointed out. We are in fact our own worst enemies.

For slightly different view, (just another – none being necessarily the ‘correct’ answer) let’s break this down a bit for those who are willing. You speak here to a ‘mainstream’ truth, which is one of the first issues, because we know that there is only ONE truth, and the irony here, is that it could be you who is actually pushing the established mainstream view, and probably without necessarily realizing it.
For instance, you say that Obama’s ‘policies’ are similar to McCain’s, without even saying what those ‘policies’ are, and without citing any of the alleged similarities. (IOW – NO details, just a broad opinion, based on nothing that a critical thinker can use as information with which to agree or disagree, but may accept at face value).

Then, even though you’ve failed to specify the ‘policies’ that you claim are ‘similar’ or how they are similar, you go on to provide the ‘reasons’ for why this is so. Because they are both allegedly ‘financed’ and ‘supported’ in the media by the same power structure.

The second part is a real brain twister. How do we really say that they are financed and supported by the *same* ‘power structure’…key words coming up here..IN THE MEDIA, and then say that is the reason their policies are similar?

Bear with me please. What ‘power structure’ are we talking about here? Are you suggesting that there is more than one ‘power structure’, and that some finance the media, and therefore can literally put words into either candidates’ mouths, or force them to perform specific actions, and the ‘other’ power structures cannot do this? I suggest there are some twists here.

First, the media can do much damage (and has) in terms of what has been co-opted into the current corrupt regime as an institution of state propaganda. However, even THAT media cannot put absolute truth to the words and actions of either candidate. What each of these guys SAYS and DOES, is the only way that we can gain any glimmer of what their policies happen to be, and even at that, we don’t necessarily get it right. That is particularly the case with Obama, who holds his hand very close to his vest, for what I believe to be very pragmatic reasons. So in truth and reality, neither the MSM or the alleged ‘power structure’ can literally ‘support’ or finance what these guys think, say or do. First of all, they can’t KNOW what they ‘think’ unless both have specifically said it. Next, they can’t ‘support’ anything in one direction or balance or another, unless they are spinning something as fact that really isn’t. At the end of the day, the media, be it the MSM or alternative media, has the same basic truth to work with, and it’s up to the public to critically analyze what that is. And we must do it based on what the candidates themselves have put forth in their own words, be they written or orally conveyed in speech (basically same as written) or interview style.

Part 2

So, if Barack Obama writes an essay for the NYT or the Washington Post, THAT’S where we need to look to find their policy views, even though I admit that most Americans either cannot or will not take these words in context to a larger picture, and I know that Obama no longer attempts to give a lesson as he does it. First, because he’s already been accused of being too professoratorial (folks don’t like the ‘details’) and next because they cannot absorb context or sub-context to anything beyond a short view or superficial surface, and so it would be a waste of time. That is specifically the case because so much of “policy’ (or at least decisions made in the process of executing policy) depend on other factors or ‘truths’ that change at any given time.
That said, I think there are incredibly obvious differences in their ‘policies’ on a huge number of things, encompassing both foreign and domestic policy. For instance, John McCain HATES social security, and is committed to eliminating it entirely. THIS view represents the *real* power structure, which is the corporate elite, who have…in the past 8 years, come to be totally intermingled with the state as the governing ‘power structure’. Obama has an entirely different view of what social security should accomplish, based far more on its original purpose as part of the New Deal, but with obvious updates to the current climate of the 21st Century.

And their attitudes on foreign policy have enormous and very clearly defined differences, on the ideologically broader level, as well as in the details. Overall, Americans mostly fail to take it upon themselves to directly examine these thoughts or views directly from the words and acts of the candidates themselves, but they also fail to connect the appropriate dots, that may be less visible.
So we use words like that of one poster here, who calls Obama ‘weak’. Well, that can be as legitimate a view as any, but how is that being determined? Is he ‘weak’ because he’s failed to go after McCain personally in terms of slander, smear, and dragging him through the Swiftmud, even though he COULD do that very easily? That’s one view. OR, do we see pragmatic compromise as ‘weaknesses’ such as on the FISA vote, that was abdominal, but would have passed regardless, no matter how he voted. Or is it because he’s been accused of seeming to ‘pander’ to the AIPAC lobby, even though there is a possible, (and I would say PROBABLE) deeper motive to what he is setting up through that mechanism?

Even Scheer went on an understandable rant when Obama met with some of the *real* power structure in terms of his recent with bankers.. From Scheer’s view, (which I do “get”)  Obama had to be crazy (or selling out) to be seemingly corroborating with the very entity that had fucked things up so much to begin with. From another view, (mine and ‘possibly’ Obama’s, since I can’t read his mind), WHAT BETTER people to approach (at least in this situation) to fix what they jacked up, since we can assume with some relative safety, that they are STILL holding the purse strings and the power that goes with that. HE certainly doesn’t have it, and neither do the rest of us screwees. So if somebody steals your jacket, you don’t just go steal someone else’s. You go back to whomever stole yours to begin with, at least as a first step to a permanent solution, because the emergency measures, (taking one from somebody else) cannot continue to sustain further damage.

Part 3

So if you want a bomb diffused before it can go off and create damage or even greater destruction than what you see has already occurred, would you not go to the creator of the bomb to have it halted by some measure of negotiation? The one who built the bomb is generally the most expert at defusing it without damage. Or, if your car doesn’t start when you turn on the ignition, it may not be enough to change the tires and the headlights (even though they may need changing) because you’re probably gonna have to tinker with the motor; first to analyze/diagnose the problem, and then to negotiate a repair. Simply speaking, all fires can be extinguished with water. In fact, putting water on a grease or chemical fire makes it worse, just as oxygen will increase nearly any fire. A successful purveyor of any policy knows (or at least finds out) which tool works best in which circumstances. Scheer includes that here in his reference to Obama’s consistent reminder that we all, at some points along the way, have to talk to or otherwise negotiate with people we don’t necessarily ‘like’ because an ever changing variety of situations and circumstances absolutely requires it. McCain on the other hand, is all about blowing up every bridge he can visualize, including ones that are invisible, (at least to him).

Much of the same theme is continued in your suggestion that a vote for Obama may be ‘better’ but should be done with no ‘illusions’. There again, ILLUSIONS is a dangerous word in these times, because illusions too, are in the eyes of the beholder. “Illusions” in this context, relate directly to expectations; expectations of the electorate, based on their own priorities. There are more variances in those priorities than we can ever accurately measure. So it is THERE where the Media can do the most damage, (or even the most good, except that rarely happens these days). And they do that by both obvious and imperceptible manipulation of what the electorate ‘chooses’ as those priorities. A more informed and critically thinking population would take a more active role in deciding that for themselves. Sadly, as Scheer points out, collectively speaking, we’re a long way from that. And if we only look at the superficial, such as the age, appearance, or established measure of intelligence, class, how much money they have, etc, etc, we’re never gonna get to the real stuff that we need to make such determinations.

I know plenty of 70+ year old people who have the same level of intelligence as Obama, aided by life/situational experience. They might not have as much energy, but that can always be compensated for. So ‘age’ alone, is not the only criteria, anymore than their level of formal education, but that certainly helps, and Obama has an overwhelmingly obvious advantage here. McCain is not a smart man, intellectually or otherwise.

The whole is always greater than the sum of its parts, and that’s what we have to look at, for both positive and negative consequences.