Folktruther, September 28 at 12:26 pm #

What you don’t say conflicts sharply with what you say.
**********************************************

Would you say Sudan is an Apartheid state?  No? Then your accusation of Israel is meaningless.
Saudi Arabia?  Same.
Libya? Same.
Syria? Same.
Yeman? Same.
Egypt? Same.
Tunisia? Same.
Algeria? Same.

In each of these states, particularly the first two, there is an explicit class system.  If you are a Christian or a Jew you are AT BEST a 2nd class citizen.

In Sudan, if you are Sunni but not Arab, you are subject to murder and forced rape, SANCTIONED BY THE GOVERNMENT!

So…Christians and Moslems are not only allowed to live in Israel, they are allowed to vote and hold elective office.  Only Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority allow that of ALL the Arab states.

So the charge of apartheid against Israel is and always has been hypocritical bullshit hurled by nations whose own back yard is far, far worse.

Even today, in Germany, no Turkish German could EVER hold office.  And in China? The remaining “Communist” state where all are equal? Mandarins are more equal than others. Russia? Still one of the most racist societies on earth.  Ask the Chechens.

Even in America, the only reason Barack Obama doesn’t have a 20 point lead on John McCain is…his ethnicity.  His skin color and his name.  Do you think a devout Moslem could be elected a US Senator, Governor, major-city mayor or President in the United States?  Hell, we can’t even elect a woman to the Presidency—Israel, Britain, Germany, India, even Pakistan have done what we cannot do.

So this “apartheid” talk is bullshit. Only the Likud and the nutty religious fanatics advocate that, and I see THEIR vision of Israel as hideous as the Taliban’s, the Christo-fascists here, or the Iranian ayatollahs.

Everyone else in Israel just wants to make sure they don’t let in bombers.  It’s a nation with a siege mentality, and you say “That’s ok…you all deserve to die just for being you.”.

By Tony Wicher, September 28 at 1:08 pm #

“The establishment of the Democratic party has changed. The struggle for the control of the Democratic party, which might be called the Democratic political establishment, has been led by Howard Dean, who is the current chairman.”

Than what explains Obama’s advors on economics and foreign affairs? Almost all are former Clinton advisors. Nearly all his advisors are all neoliberal/free market/hawks.

No Tony, nothing has changed, just the name of the candiate at the head of the ticket.

Dean is a moderate Dem who was only against the invasion of Iraq. I wouldn’t use him as prima facie evidence of “change” in the Dem party, and besides he’s not in control of the Dem Party, anymore than the his predecessor were.

The establishment of the Democratic party has changed. The struggle for the control of the Democratic party, which might be called the Democratic political establishment, has been led by Howard Dean, who is the current chairman. Remember People Powered Howard? The progressive Democrat whose candidacy was torpedoed last time The Democratic wing of the Democratic party? The forces of democracy and progress won. The Clinton/DLC wing lost. What we have now is a candidate more progressive than Clinton on the verge of winning the presidency in a political and economic situation which should make possible a very significant progressive movement of the country.

McCain and Obama both serve the same masters which is what makes them almost identical in their politics.  It doesn’t matter where they came from.

Re diamond, September 28 at 12:27 pm #

How can anyone claim that Obama and McCain are both ‘products of the establishment’?
——————————————————————————
Good question. Because some of those posting here wear ideological glasses which blur their political vision to the point where they can’t see these obvious differences that you mention.

By diamond, September 28 at 12:27 pm #

You are confusing money and class (and race) with the political establishment which gives us the two party candidates.

So, very simply BOTH McCain and Obama are products of the establishment.

(But you know this - don’t you? I mean you really don’t need me to tell you that, for us both to waste our time on meaningless drivel?)

By Inherit The Wind, September 28 at 11:01 am

ITW,

I myself continue to favor a one-state solution where Jews, Arabs and others can be truly equal citizens of the same country. But I have to say, you might be a Zionist, but you’re my kind of Zionist. I used to tell all Zionists that they should vote Republican, because the Republican party is the place for people who support imperialism and don’t care about human rights. But I have come to put Zionism in perspective, to understand that there are different kinds of Zionists, and that there are those, such as you, who agree with me on a broad range of issues even though we disagree on this one (and others, such as my suspicions about 9-11.) In spite of our differences, we are both good Americans, good Democrats and stalwart Obama supporters. That’s the way it should be.

How can anyone claim that Obama and McCain are both ‘products of the establishment’? McCain is white, he’s from an upper middle class family of military men (officer class) and has never wanted for anything material except for when he was in the POW situation which, while a situation of danger and suffering, was for a relatively short period of time and not typical of his life before or after. He’s now one of the superich: his wife is worth $100 million and he has seven houses and thirteen cars.

Obama was a mixed race child brought up by his mother and his grandparents. His single mother had to work more than one job to put him through school. Fortunately he was determined, charismatic and brilliant and ended up with a law degree. After graduating, he didn’t forget those less fortunate than himself and worked as a community organiser. This shows he has empathy, something McCain totally lacks as he has shown on many occasions. McCain was almost last in his class and was not a success as a pilot. After Vietnam he returned to his relatively privileged life. Obama knew struggle but not because of war. His race and his economic class were his war and he won. Instead of saying ‘they’re all the same’ you should celebrate the difference and applaud Obama’s intelligence and grit. He’s a hero too, you know. Flying a plane in a war is not the only way to be heroic.

Alright as far as you say, Inherit, but there are many things you do not say.  You are against Palesitians returning but do not mention Jews who never lived there ‘returning’.  You want to preserve the present state of Israel without mentioning that it is an apartheid state.  You don’t mention that the Israel parties SAY they want a Palestinian state while increasing settlers in the West Bank.

What you don’t say conflicts sharply with what you say.

By Tony Wicher, September 28 at 11:39 am #

The point of my last post is that we need an alternative narrative.

Nader realizes that such a narrative cannot be offered through the established two party system.

Again, Obama is more of the same. You can dress that up and parade it out and pretend this is not retread material, but in the end it’s more of the same.

I don’t get HBO. The tact of saying Nader should be in the Dem tent is the usual attempt at undermining real opposition. The Dems fear such opposition more than their Repub sidekicks. It’s what keeps a real progressive movement stymied; and they know it.

If the debates were independently run, a Nader on that stage would have up-ended the whole simple business as usual tripartite - Repub/Dem/Media.

ITW,

Thanks for the info!

Seems to me Russia could be a noble alley and as I stated before so could Iran. Of course some prefer constant strife, it is good for their pocket books.

By Max Shields, September 28 at 10:37 am #

Nader is not a radical. He presents a cogent argument with sufficient facts to support his contentions. He is a true independent progressive.

Even if you disagree with his personality or style, you cannot deny the man his integrity and the depth of his understanding about issues that are fundamental and must be addressed - the sooner the better.
—————————————————————————
Max,

I saw Nader on the Bill Maher show yesterday, did you? (Wasn’t Chris Rock great?) Maher said Nader should be the voice of the Democratic party and I agree. But I question Nader’s political strategy in running for President as opposed to my strategy of “boring from within” the Democratic party. I think my strategy has resulted in moving the Democratic party to the left whereas his strategy has only succeeded in splitting the progressive vote. You don’t recognize this movement to the left but that is because you have chosen to stay out of the Democratic party and are not aware of the significant and successful struggle of more progressive, less corporate forces within the party. Nader would be a respected and influential voice within the Democratic party today as indeed he was in the sixties. Obama did talk to him recently but said Nader asked for too much in return for his endorsement. I agree with Maher and Moore that this was a mistake.

Sorry, I misquoted Obama.  He said the next “conflict” not the next “war.”  Since congress has been overridden in it’s athority to declare war, presidents refer to our invasions of other countries as “conflicts” rather than wars.

Folktruther, September 28 at 8:34 am #

The War on Terrorism was initiated ideologically by a public Jerusulem conference in 1979.  It was attend by Bush 1, Natanyahu, Wolfiwitz, etc, and activated by Bush 2.  It was pushed by both the Gop neocons and Dem neolibs, both ardent Zionists.

**********************************************

Contradictions don’t exist.  When you think you have found one, check your premises.  You will find at least one is in error.—Ayn Rand.

Several of your premises are in error.

I oppose the war on Islamo-fascism because I don’t know what it is.  My best guess is that it is 11th century Crusaderism that believes “Killing an infidel is no sin” (see Kingdom of Heaven).

I have no problem with trying to wipe out terrorism, but the GWOT is bullshit.  We know who the terrorists are, and where they are based.  The GWOT is a BS excuse for the illegal war in Iraq.

We are not at war with Iran.  Nor should we be, nor do we need to be.

I support the existence of Israel.  I think that in a vast world of 23 Arab Moslem states in a territory 3x the size of the US, there’s room for one Jewish state smaller than New Jersey.  I do not support all the policies of that state, and think they have had many wrong-headed ones over the last 30 years, since Begin and Likud first came to power and made things worse.  But I strongly believe in a 2-state solution that lets both peoples live finally in peace without fear of being blown up by the other.

I no more support an unlimited right to return in Israel for Palestinians than I support one for Germans to return to East Prussia, from which they were forcibly evicted after WWII and became Poland.  Gdansk, in Poland, was the German city of Danzig up till 1945.

I want to see the excesses of the right-wing Likud fanatics shut down, just like I want to see the excesses of the right-wing christo-fanatics shut down here, in the US.  I view Likud as being about as sane and practical as Sarah Palin. Like her, they need to be stopped.

Ehud Olmert may well be the most inept and incompetent PM Israel has ever had—he’s their George Bush.

But none of this means I want to see Israel destroyed.  I want a NEGOTIATED agreement between Israel and Palestine that allows them to finally live in peace.  Only then can the gates start opening and the fences come down—and trade can bind them together.

Check your premisis.

Leefeller, September 28 at 9:49 am #

We need to demonize and create this sense of fear, because it moves the agenda along, after all it is only money.
*******************************************

Rather than demonize Russia, especially when they follow policies not too different than Bush’s, it’s better to look at motivations, and opportunities.

1) Bush recognizes an independent Kosova state, infuriating Serbia, but more importantly, Russia.
2) Bush encourages Georgia to take actions that taunt Russia, promises to back them up.
3) Russia, trying to build its economy, sees a huge leakage in the Georgian pipeline from Asia, busting their monopoly.
4) Russia invades Georgia. Never mind the reasons and wherefores—they invade Georgia, just like we invaded Iraq.
5) Bush does what Bush does best: Double-crosses Georgia.  At least if you’re Bush’s enemy you know he can’t double-cross you—but if you’re a friend or ally, whether nationally or personally, he’ll throw you under the bus in a NY minute.
6) In response to Bush’s recognizing Kosovo, Russia recognizes the breakaway provinces of Georgia, hoping to topple the Georgian president, and nearly succeed.
8) There has long been resentment in Russia about the loss of the Empire, which predates 1917 by 200 years.
9) Russian paranoia is long a well-known constant in international diplomacy.  It’s not a Soviet tendency, it’s a Russian one.  And just because the Russians are paranoid doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be!
10) Former allies, like Poland, now have ABMs supplied by the US.  Despite Bush’s claims that they are not directed at Russia, somehow Mevedev and Putin don’t believe him…“Trust, but verify!”...Most Americans don’t believe Bush.  Why should the Russians?
11) Bush’s policies around the world have made the Russian paranoia go hyper.  Do you blame them?
12) Russia MUST look to her security.  Classically, Russia sought client buffer states.  It is now critical that those former border states don’t become allies of moslem-fundamentalist states—like Iran.

I could make point after point of the case, but I think you see the point. We were taught as kindergarteners to put ourselves in the other’s place: “How you feel if he did that to YOU?” the teacher/parent asks?

The intelligent use of that question is, and has always been the key to successful diplomacy.  Bismarck lived by it.  It means understanding their world view due to their geography, their needs and desires.  Mostly, you find that this analysis can transcend the political system.  EG: Russian broad foreign policy trends have been basically unchanged for a couple of hundred years, under Tsars, Communists, Democrats, and now neo-fascists.  Nothing changes other than our MIS-understanding of Russian motivations.

It is important to realize that the two candidates this country is faced with are products of the establishment. They are simply vying for the same job. The media never presses on the fundamental questions of war and peace with are inextricably connected to economic and domestic policies.

Both candidates are believers in the economics of growth, which have proven themselves uneconomical and unsustainable. Both frame our foreign policy as one of hegemony and dominance. However approaches may vary, directionally, there is literally no difference.

Nader, while he may never be president, is a strong voice that would force this meaningless “dialog” into a realm of reason. Sure the Moores of the world would be angered (he was the fellow who made the complete opposite argument 8 years ago FOR Nader), but who cares.

Nowhere has Obama made himself an outstanding candidate. He is simply a Kerry/Gore/Mondale/Dukakis retread who seems to have bought into much of the Bush/Cheney as well as the AIPAC/Zionist legacy.

Nader is not a radical. He presents a cogent argument with sufficient facts to support his contentions. He is a true independent progressive.

Even if you disagree with his personality or style, you cannot deny the man his integrity and the depth of his understanding about issues that are fundamental and must be addressed - the sooner the better.

It’s not a question of voting for Nader, it’s a question of listening to a true rebuttal which almost all, but the most cynical progressives believe. Progressives don’t buy Obama, they’re simply choosing the lesser of two evil and don’t want anyone to mess it up - because some would rather live with evil than to hear truth at this stage.

It is hardly worth responding to cyrena’s posts anymore since she lives in an insular world of illusions concerning Obama.  This is however a direct quote from Obama at the debate: “We have got to make sure that our military is ready for the next war.”

Also I said that expenditures for the war machine which includes the regular Pentagon approriation as well as supplemental appropriations for the war in Iraq, are ONE thing which is ruining the country.
She turned it around, saying that I said that it is THE ONE thing which is ruining the country.  Quite a difference there, though I don’t think she recognizes it.

She insists that I am a Hillary supporter (now disgruntled) simply because I said that there were things to admire about HC.  Cyrena sees everything in black and white terms… “you’re either with us or against us, you either love Obama or hate him…” sounds like some one else we know, doesn’t it?

There are good reasons for preferring Obama over McCain for president, but to have these illusions
that he is going to change how the US operates in the world is inexcusable.  We might expect it from the teeny bopers who are all excited about voting in their first election but adults ought to have their eyes open and their feet on the ground in voting for him. 

When he first took office Bush said that the American way of life is “sacred” and that he would do anything to protect and maintain it.  I haven’t heard Obama say anything that would indicate that he doesn’t agree with that sentiment.  It will be his job to do what ever it takes to maintain the empire.  Getting ready for the next war is part of that.  People shouldn’t have any illusions about it.

ITW,

Appreciate the history lesson.  Your comment:

“Look at the map again and you’ll see that a newly resurgent Russian Federation is on the brink of re-gobbling its neighbors, as in Georgia.”

Is Russia really doing this, or is it only propaganda?
Using the words re-gobbling up, is similar to saying creating a puppet government, something so against our good old apple pie USA principals? Seems to me our governments meddling caused the Georgia thing the first place, nice way to re-create the cold war fear attitude we long for and love so much.

We need to demonize and create this sense of fear, because it moves the agenda along, after all it is only money.

Inheerit-I don’t understand you.  You are against the War on Terrorism, the war against Iran, and yet are for the apratheid Israeli powerstate that pormotes them. 

The War on Terrorism was initiated ideologically by a public Jerusulem conference in 1979.  It was attend by Bush 1, Natanyahu, Wolfiwitz, etc, and activated by Bush 2.  It was pushed by both the Gop neocons and Dem neolibs, both ardent Zionists.

As the “pundits” here discuss who won the first presidential debate, I am surprised that no one among the comments I read has mentioned that the real winner is Israel. I am not surprised that just on the wake of the debate Israel announces that it has received advanced warning radars, which I am sure both McCain and Obama have signed on this expensive donation while main street America awaits for some crumbs from the Wall Street bailout.

For the first time in my life I feel I was born in the wrong religion, ethnicity and country. It would have been nice if I were born a Zionist!

God, forgive me for saying this! I’d rather be part of the disadvantaged and oppressed minority rather than ...

By Inherit The Wind, September 27 at 4:14 pm #

I see you still use the same old zionist spin on equating jews everywhere with Israel.  There are alot of jews (especially religious ones) who do not support Israel and its governments zionist policies.

By Rus7355, September 28 at 4:39 am #

Atypical Republican commercial, a black man and a white woman not smart enough to climb the escalator.
I sure hope they play it here.  It would cause an even bigger landslide for Obama that only neorepublican ignorance could provide.

The U.S, Constitution was based on governance of 13 independent states, each with its own flag, song and history. States have their own legislatures and militia and would not take kindly to more populous states voting mandates on them. 

The Electoral college protects smaller states against more populous ones.  It is one of the checks and balances written into the constitution.

Of the hundreds of wars and conflicts the US has been involved in name 3 that had anything to do with protecting the homeland.

Can’t we just say “Der Vaterland”? (and give the fascist salute of Moose-a-lini)

WWI

WWI could have been prevented had Wilson not a rabid Anglophile. The Germans tried to appease us, until 1916.  Our entry was to prevent either Germany OR France from dominating Europe, and replace Britain as world bankers.  We were NEVER an ally but an ASSOCIATED power.

WWII

agreed

The cold war

This was based on fallacious assumptions but with an underlying of truth.  Stalin DID deploy spies, did “steal” atomic secrets (Klaus Fuchs) and used bombastic tactics.  He DID DID withdraw from: Greece, Iran, Austria, China, and Japan following the War.

Furthermore, the times were dominated by the idiotic idea of “monolithic” Communism, despite the antipathy of China to Russia, and of North Korea and VietNam to China.  Ho Chi Minh was a Marxist but also a nationalist.

Cuba: blunder.
The blockade has, for 46 years, strengthened Castro, rather than weakened him.

Gulf War I

I only agree with explanations and footnotes: Saddam wanted to seize Kuwait both for its oil as well as its strategic Gulf position. The Al Sabahs in Kuwait weren’t any better than Saddam—they fled with his invasion and, when they returned, they rounded up and EXECUTED all heroic resistance fighers.  Why? Because THOSE people would have a legitimate claim to rule Kuwait and the Al Sabahs didn’t.

Also, Bush 41 is about 10,000x smarter than his inbred offspring and KNEW that toppling Saddam was far more expensive and far less effective than containing him.  I thought ‘41 was wrong at the time, but it’s the one time I’ll admit he was right and I was wrong…and his idiot son has proved he was right.

Gulf war II

Illegal, pointless war that RUINED our ability to really get the bad guys, by leaving Afghanistan before the job was done, when we were POPULAR in Afghanistan.  The reasons given for the war were lies, careers were ruthlessly shattered for revealing those lies.  Our economy was ruined, and our ability to recruit National Guardsman and Army Reserves were destroyed by the deadly lies exist Guard and Reserve faced.

The war against Islamo-fascism

I have NO idea what this is other than a new, idiotic cold-war, with no direction, no purpose, except to create a new McCarthyism.

The decades long soft war against Iran

Again, Iran has never attacked anyone.  We have had MULTIPLE occasions to repair our relations, the best of which was when we went after the Taliban, Iran offered their aid as they HATE the Taliban and Al Qaeda (Sunni/Shi’ia thing, you know).  Not only did we rebuff them at this GOLDEN opportunity, but in Jan of 2002, Bush labeled Iran as part of the “Axis of Evil”, effectively killing the best chance we had for reconciliation.

And Reconciliation with Iran is necessary. What nobody wants to recognize is that Iran’s NATURAL allies are the US and Israel.  Really.  Look at a map and you see Israel and Iran separated by Arab Sunni Moslem states that are hostile to both Israeli Jews and Persian (non-Arab) Shi’ites.  Look at the map again and you’ll see that a newly resurgent Russian Federation is on the brink of re-gobbling its neighbors, as in Georgia.  Two of the former SSRs border Iran.  IOW, Russia is a far bigger AND closer threat to Iran than the US.

All undertaken in self-defense. Knowing this is the much needed context many fail to consider.

You need to use ANALYSIS to understand Foreign Relations, not RNC talking points.  Karl Rove has NEVER understood the first thing about ForRel, and the ONLY person Dubya had who did was Powell.

You are right about a few of these—but that’s like a broken clock….

Frank Cajon, September 27 at 10:07 pm #

Max: In my posts in the Wall St threads, I make very clear that the Electoral College is a vestige of the slave economy of the Constitutional convention in the 1780s. Adams Jr, Hayes, B Harrison, and Bush all lost the popular vote and Adams and Hayes didn’t even legitimately win the EC. The runoff is never going to happen but my first goal is that one man one vote will happen in my lifetime, and the EC has to go.
**********************************************
Minor corrections.  Adams did “win” under the system at the time.  It’s George W. Bush who didn’t legitimately win the EC, because we KNOW he didn’t win in Florida, but the USSC, where 4 of the 5 justices ALL had conflicts of interest, gave it to him. 

(Rehnquist had a daughter and Scalia had a son in the Bush team. Thomas’s wife was vetting appointments for Bush.  O’Connor openly said at a party that she couldn’t STAND Al Gore.  All 4 should have recused themselves).

I TOTALLY am for removing the EC and going to a direct Presidential vote.  But states comprising less than 8% of the population will both be against it AND have sufficient votes to block such a change.

Remember: Each state gets one vote on Constitutional amendments.  You need 75% of the states to approve an amendment. That means 13 states voting “No” block it.  And the 16 states with the smallest populations comprise 8% of the US population. California is nearly double the size of all of them put together, but still only has 1 vote.

Rus,

You’re delusional, sorry, but it’s true. WWI was about defending American soil? From who or what? Was the Red Baron all prepped for a bi-plane, transatlantic bombing run?

WWII you have an argument for.

You haven’t read very much history, have you? Stalin disavowed Trotsky’s world revolution almost immediately. Archival history shows that he had zero intention of moving beyond his near abroad, and that was a dispute because Churchill and Roosevelt had promised him all that at Yalta…then changed their minds. When Kennedy ran on the “missile gap” platform, he was lying and he knew it. U2 photos showed that the USSR had 4 ICBM’s; the US had 160 at the time. And of the two cold war belligerents, only one held the right to a first strike: the United States.

Gulf War I had nothing to do with American soil, come on. We supported and armed Hussein throughout his history in Iraq, and he attacked Kuwait…not Rhode Island. You may not know this, but the range capability of a SCUD doesn’t quite make it to the continental US from Iraq.

Gulf War II was a pack of lies from the front to the back, and Hussein’s ability to make war on anyone was negligible after having his army destroyed in GW I and living under sanctions for a decade.

I won’t deal with your “self-defense” argument because there’s no way to prove that from your perspective or mine, but if you’d like to define the term for us, we can talk.

And quit saying “homeland”, it makes you sound like a little brownshirt crying for lebensraum.

Finally, if you’re going to give history lessons, then the burden of proof is on you to actually prove the assertions with evidence. If you have none, don’t make the assertions. I know you don’t have any, because i can tell that you don’t actually read history…aside from reviewing HS history textbooks.

For all you here seeking “truth”. LOL

Democrats on Escalator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XivNwQ76mCs

By Max Shields, September 27 at 11:26 am #

By G.Anderson, September 27 at 11:20 am #

Of the hundreds of wars and conflicts the US has been involved in name 3 that had anything to do with protecting the homeland.

WWI
WWII
The cold war
Gulf War I
Gulf war II
The war against Islamo-fascism
The decades long soft war against Iran

All undertaken in self-defense. Knowing this is the much needed context many fail to consider.

I think Bill’s summary is right on point.  Hopefully, Obama’s coaches will tell him that he can skip the agreement phrases and start right off with “where we differ”.  While Obama scored well in composure, he wasn’t in any way charming.  I think he probably can be charming, but I doubt that McCain could pull it off if he tried.

I walked away thinking that McCain made some effective and passionate points that were largely offset by his condescension and arrogance.

There’s something that just doesn’t feel right about the way he repeatedly refers to himself as a “maverick”.  I can’t put my finger on it, but it probably has something to do with my opinion of people who brag, or it’s because I’ve never met anyone who referred to themselves as a “maverick”.  Either way, he’s overused it, and it’s unimpressive.

We have seen that McCain is a man who should never be president.

His mindless chant of bomb, bomb, bomb Iran tells it all. He is a dangerous jingoist who would mindlessly get us into yet another war in Iran.

His grandstanding reveals a dangerous risk-taking personality which puts self-aggrandizement above all else (shades of Bush)—claims of suspending his election to work on the economic meltdown, and his choice of Sarah Palin. His past history of temper tantrums and risky behavior should give pause to everyone.

He is even more of an accident-ready-to-happen than George W. Bush.

If he had been at the helm in 1962, we most likely would be still digging out of a nuclear war.

McCain came off like a testy old fart stuck in archaic 19th centuries ideals. Aggravated by a 21st century young idealist with visions of a cohesive all inclusive future.

Troublesum-you are quite right that both candidates support militry imperialism.  And have, at least implicitly, supported the bipartisan police state that it and increased class inequality mandates.

But many people who support these candidates often do so with an ideology that implies the exact opposite of their policies.  Frank cajon appears quite sincere in saying that he favors working class socialism, such socialism being quite impossible with the policies of military imperialism.

Tony Wicher claims to be an intenational socialist, but by ‘internationalism’ he means military imperialism.  Here the sincerity is more dubious.

Cyrena is simply dishonest in attacking you, attributing to you straw arguments that you do not make and going into her customary distractive filibustering.  She is openly for militarism, a military draft, and for this sellout bailout, and routinely calls anyone systematically against the policies that Obama holds a liar.  It’s just her malice speaking so it is not as important as the ideological delusion that you refer to.

I think these power delusions are quite real, especialy in the American people, and exist because the mainstream truth of the learned and mass media excludes attacks on them.  They produce a kind of defensive ideological denial that is very difficult to penetrate. 

That is the major ideological problem in the US: emotional denial not intellectual ignorance. Power delusions-such as the Constitution mandates democracy when its tenets-such as in electtoral rules- actually prevents it, sets up a psychological defense which can’t be admitted or acknowledged. It is unpatriotic, uneducated and in other ways illegitimate to call the US Consitituion racist, which it always has been, and mandating anti-democracy.

Hobsbawm argues in an essay in his recent book that the US had to justify its institutions and instruments this way to unite the people because it could not appeal to a long common history. This has created an American ideal divorced from operative reality, and Americans are so accustomed to it, like church on Sunday and its irrelevance to the rest of the week, that an operative idealism appears impractical to them.

The only way to change this may be the oppressive reality that the country is about to undergo historically.  As Trotsky says, to a tickle people respond differently, but to a red hot iron, alike.  (He of course does not favor these red hot iron but history routinely provides them.)

Without reading any other comments let me say this:  For the first time I realize what a condescending, arrogant, son of a bitch McCain is.  His demeanor and attitude were nothing less than disgusting. 
McCain; “Boy, you don’t know nuthin!  I happen to be the master here!”
I can’t go on because I’ll descend into a string of 3,4, and 5 letter expletives instead of communicating anything meaningful.

Max: In my posts in the Wall St threads, I make very clear that the Electoral College is a vestige of the slave economy of the Constitutional convention in the 1780s. Adams Jr, Hayes, B Harrison, and Bush all lost the popular vote and Adams and Hayes didn’t even legitimately win the EC. The runoff is never going to happen but my first goal is that one man one vote will happen in my lifetime, and the EC has to go.

Re: Max Sheilds

Your comment: “Did you hear them? it went like this: War war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war….for most of the 90 minutes

That’s what I heard too.  I had to take a couple of breaks from the “debate”, since it became increasing stressful to hear.  It seemed the premise became, who will be the bigger bully on the block…?  The outcome I felt was that Obama would be a more “communicative” bully than McCain.  I considered this… and decided, that while that may be true, a bully is still a bully.

Way, way,....way back in grade school, I remembered fighting and standing up to these bullies.  We effectively shut them down, I say we can do it again.  Similiarly, as the overgrown, lumbering, half-wits who stalk me in their vain attempt to intimidate, don’t change my mind, neither will any bully.  Hang tough and never, say never…..

Nader/Gonzales 2008

Open the debates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAWGIaBr3D8&feature=related

By Max Shields, September 27 at 10:11 am, quoting Patrick Henry,

PH writes:
•  “Did anyone notice how McCain parrotted the lie about “Israel being wiped of the map” in reference to Iran.”

And Max Shields responds:

•  “And did you see how Obama jumped on that to correct him….? (laugh/joke) That’s this “debate” in a nut shell.”

So Max, ya just don’t get it, do you? There is a plethora of rationale to explain how/why Obama’s (non) reaction to this comment was absolutely the smartest move.

It starts with the standard wisdom that suggests we should AVOID providing legitimization to the ridiculous by RESPONDING to such ridiculous statements that we’ve all heard far too often. (Obama doesn’t claim to be McInsane’s therapist)

It’s true that Obama didn’t respond, and I don’t remember now, exactly what his facial expression was when McInsane did the parroting that PH mentions. He should have rolled his eyes, or something similar, just to let us know that HE knows, that McSame is insane. But, Obama isn’t much for the theatrics. (maybe we could coach him, but I doubt it would do any good. His ‘nickname’ –  “No Drama Obama” is pretty legitimate.)

Nope, in the tips for successful debaters, one of the fundamental rules is that if one’s opponent is willing to make a total fool of him/herself, you LET them!! Otherwise, you can (and often will) let them suck you into their own agenda. In hindsight, how or what could Obama have responded with?

He could have said, “Oh John, you talk WAY more shit than Ahmadinejad could ever think up. Maybe you should learn Persian.” Or, “When is the last time Iran attacked ANYBODY?” (Tony Wincher reminds us it was back around the time of Cyrus the Great, before Iran was even Iran). Or, “John, are you SURE that’s what he said? Let’s ask him. Get him on teleconference right now…and we’ll just settle this once and for all!” Or, “Senator McInsane, how the hell do YOU know WHAT Ahmadinejad has said, when you and your Dick Bush cronies REFUSE to communicate with the guy, DEPSPITE all of the efforts that Ahmadinejad has made to communicate with US?!” (and then he could have rattled off all of the attempts that have been made on the part of Iran, with help from the Swiss and others…ALL of which have been ignored/rebuffed by Condi the Rice et al). OR…he could have just said, (this is my favorite)..”John, why don’t you just STFU? With your old ass and feeble mind, you don’t have a clue to what ANYBODY has said or done during the last decade, and I should kick your ass right here and now, just on GP!!” (I might have been tempted to say something like that in a less controlled moment).
OR..he could have said, “Ahmadinejad wasn’t talking about ISRAEL being a stinking corpse that needed to be wiped off the map, he was talkin’ ‘bout YOU Asshole!!”

Ah…but only in my dreams, eh? In the reality of the political debate strategies, he did best to say nothing, or again….bite his tongue. There’s no telling where a response would have led, and a smart lawyer knows how to control the trajectory of the discourse. Lawyer’s rule: never ask a witness a question without already knowing what the answer is. Or, let ‘em just run off at the mouth. (very appropriate in the case of senile old fools like McCain, who suffer from diarrhea of the mouth, and constipation of the brain).

Now I want to remind you though, that Obama DID respond where appropriate, even though I agree with Frank Cajon that he was mostly ‘too nice’. To paraphrase here, (because I don’t have the text in front of me) John McCain accused Obama of sponsoring/supporting the most LIBERAL legislation in the history of the Senate. Obama’s response was something like, “Well, that’s mostly just me responding to the WRONG-HEADED policies of the Bush Administration!”

You really should pay more attention Max.

Max,

You didn’t “prove” anything other than you don’t understand international law, international relations or what an act of war is.  Nor do you understand that International Law is no more or less than what the most powerful nations say it is, and how they negotiate among themselves.

Had we harbored terrorists against Cuba they might be TOTALLY justified in attacking the US.  Of course, that would also be suicide.  DUHHHHHH!!!!!
See the above paragraph.

Sure, you’ve justified the Japanese attack. Japan had ALL kinds of options but kept, like George Bush, taking the military ones BEFORE the others were exhausted.  Don’t blame the US for that war—blame the arrogant incompetent leadership of Tojo.

Now, You said “Simple.  Negotiate.”  Again, you are being vague and avoiding specifics.  Negotiate what? With whom?  And what are you prepared to cede to get them to agree to a change in the Constitution?  Unlimited Snickers Bars?

Imagine you are trying to convince Sarah Palin and the GOP legislature of Alaska.  Just what would you say to even get them to LISTEN to you, much less agree to ratify an amendment to cede their power?

What are you going to negotiate?  Negotiations means both sides cede something to get something.  What will YOU cede to Sarah Palin & Co. to get her to agree to doing away with the Electoral College? What? What will you give them?  What could you POSSIBLY have that’s better than 650,000 people wielding a choke hold on the 304,350,000???

Just another ill-thought out Naderist idea with having considered the REALITY it faces.

Funny thing is, I WANT proportion representation, too.

Hiya, Cyrena!  Lady, we are agreeing on ‘way too much these days!  Something must be very wrong or something really bad is going on in the nation!

I thought that Obama did pretty well.  I thought he could have nailed McCain a few times and didn’t.  I was really hoping he would get McCain on his votes against veterans benefits after he spouted his veterans know they can count on me B.S.  I also bristled every time Obama talked about more troops in Afghanistan.  I don’t agree with him there, but overall he was composed, cool, and knowledgeable. 

I have to admit that McCain did better than I thought he would, only because he didn’t stammer and stayed composed.  He was snide and at times seemed to really be struggling with anger when Obama was countering his points.  It was clear McCain does not tolerate disagreement with his views well.  He showed he wouldn’t be good at taking in opposing points of view, he has a real ‘I am right and if you disagree its because you don’t understand’ sort of vibe.  It seems like a real authoritarian streak runs through him, from a military family, go figure.

Obama clearly has more of the presidential stuff.  He showed a willingness to agree when appropriate and disagree respectfully.  Judicious and prudent, I feel I can trust him not to use the military in a crazy way, even if I sometimes disagree with his positions.  I am a pacifist in all but the most necessary circumstances.  It takes a lot to convince me for a military solution to any problem.  However I do realize that total pacifism is at times naive and idealistic.

I would like to remind the Nader lovers that the American public has had progressive choices in this election.  Kucinich is a man whom I have very deep respect and admiration for.  He is a democrat.  He ran for president in the primaries and he lost badly. In my opinion he was a much better candidate than Nader could ever be.  He offered good, peaceful, populist solutions for just about every problem we face.  In my view Nader just complains.  Kucinich has been elected to a public office and serves well.  He is much stronger than Nader in speaking and ideas.  Yet he lost, badly.  It demonstrated to me that the American public is not ready for a candidate of his vision.  Like it or not, its just the state of things. 

Obama and McCain are not the same.  Neither is perfect, but one is going to be our president.  We can complain about that and vote our conscience for Nader, Mckinney, Barr, or someone else,(I think there is a constitution party too) or we can see that we have to vote strategically for the leader who will take this country in the direction we would most like to see.  Even if its not exactly what I want, by voting for Obama I am helping steer this gigantic beast of our government away from the rocks we are heading towards.  I want a bigger change of course than Obama will offer, but its clear I am not in the majority opinion.  That being the case I will work with the majority to make sure that the course they choose is at least better than the rocks a McCain presidency will bring. To me that means voting for the best realistic possibility at this time, which is Obama.  At the end of the day my feelings mean very little if they can’t translate into actions that actually affect things.

Re: cyrena

Your comment: “I’m actually going to attend this appearance by Ralph Nader tomorrow, just because I want to see if he’s saying anything at all different from what Barack Obama has been saying for the past two years. But at the end of the day, (as history has proven) these fringe groups that represent the primarily ideologies of the main body politick, (with only fringe differences) never do anything more than help the other side win.

Meantime, none of these fringe groups have any monopoly on the ‘I told ya so’ ideology. We can ALL say that! But after a point, it’s pretty useless. I agree that the ideologies represented on this board, (at least for the most part) would create a pretty fantastic Democratic Party. But I will also point to the fact that it was this VERY SAME type of eventual splintering into specific self-interests that crippled the Civil Rights Movement after the assassination of the Martin Luther King, Jr. We continue to engage in this same self-sabotage of our own interests, at our OWN peril.”

I disagree with your labeling these parties/campaigns as “fringe”.  As in what…?  Doesn’t the word fringe signify something NOT of the majority?  Yet these candidates, specifically McKinney and Nader’s, platforms are not outside of majority opinion or preference.

They ARE outside of the major parties, what I call the corporate parties, but that doesn’t make them “fringe”.  They represent MAJORITY opinion.  The two “supposed majority” parties do not.

In addition, why is it that ANYONE currently in the race for president is kept OUT of the debates…?!  Could they possibly be not “important” enough…?  The claim that they are not “serious” contenders is BS.  “They won’t win is” is also BS.  The fact is, if they were allowed in the debates, and America had the opportunity to see and hear them, THEY WOULD WIN.  People are not stupid.

See… the rhetoric is that people are stupid, but the facts are, they are not.  “WHO” says people are so..ooo stupid, that if they knew the facts or had the OPTION, wouldn’t save themselves.  Consider that…WHO... keeps telling us that.  I’ve worked with a lot of high school educated people, and they understand well enough to vote in their best interests.  The fact is… they are not given that choice.  It is a LIE of omission.

The fact of the matter is, BOTH corporate parties, are really one and the same.  All kinds of corporate money is flowing in to those coffers, all kinds of “favors” to be paid back.  Think about the larger issues here… which one of our “supposed majority candidates” is DOING what THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WANT…. they have succumb to doing what business interests dictate.  (Well…not McCain, since he was “there” a long time ago)

From my perspective there’s just no way around that fact.  I realize you see it as “not working with the constructs of the system”, however I feel the time for doing that has long past.  To me its like trying to unmix paint, it can’t be done.  And it doesn’t matter how many colors you add…because in the end you’ll just end up with some sick useless color.

Leefeller,

thank you for your response. Am I to understand that a decision, characterized by Paulson and Bearnake as absolutely urgent and allegedly required to avert the imminent collapse of the world financial system, will be postponed because Lebierman and McCain are doing lunch on Tuesday?

Seriously, why would the L. A. Times assert that a decision on the bailout will be delayed until after the Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashanah? Anyone? Can anyone explain why this would be so?

see: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fi-bailout27-2008sep27,0,1421273.story

By Leefeller, September 27 at 5:59 pm #

floydw asked:

“Can anyone explain why a Jewish holiday might delay a decision on the bailout package?”

McCain and Lebierman are the guests of honor, so we put everything on hold, it seems multitasking is very hard for some folks.

Yes, Nader did win the debate, as he proved on Bill Maher.  If the media gave equal, unbiased coverage of all parties and the debates were open, Nader could be winning the presidency; the uncritical acceptance of this charade by people here is what is criminal.  The Taliban, however, were not friends with AQ, and offered to extradite them to the United States if they were given proof that AQ caused 9/11; it was illegal to invade Afghanistan and murder their people; it is illegal to do the same in Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq.  Obama is going to be a war criminal, and his supporters are complicit.

By Frank Cajon, September 27 at 1:41 pm #

“I do not have a transcript, but did not hear Obama make any statement about the military and any next war.”

~~~~

Frank Cajon,

My guess is that he probably did NOT say it in the debate, but rather that troublesum, (who lies quite frequently by obfuscation, distortion, and exaggeration) has lifted it out of context from somewhere.  (possibly Obama’s Book, “The Audacity of Hope” (I don’t have it handy to verify) Troublesum is a disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporter, in addition to being neurotically all over the ideological map. I generally ignore people like her and Max Shields until the disingenuous rhetoric/shit needs a jackhammer to dislodge.

Like this:

By troublesum, September 27 at 3:46 pm

•  “…What kind of self deception does it take to rationalize Obama’s call for increased defense spending when you know that that is one thing which is ruining the country?”

If we read this, we’re supposed to believe that DEFENSE SPENDING is the ONE THING that is ‘ruining the country’! She’s been talking these very same vague generalities about ‘Obama’s call for’  -  for months, and has yet to back it up with any actual statements from Obama, specifically within the context of how he may have said it, or what he means by ‘defense spending’. There’s a huge difference between spending a few hundred billion on warships and other weapons’ systems, and taking care of those who actually DO make themselves available to defend out country, even though most of us know perfectly well that there has been no real EXTERNAL threat to our nation since WWII. At least that is my own position, and I’m old enough to be a holdover from the original anti-war movement of the 60’s and 70’s.

Still, my idealism is tempered by reality and pragmatism. I’m *not* particularly comfortable with Obama’s position on using military force to address the problem of global terrorism, but that is a complicated issue that would take far too much time and space to address here, in part because there is no real consensus at the moment on HOW to address this very real problem.

It IS a very real problem, and Obama isn’t lying when he says that al-Qaeda is now operating in at least 60 countries. And while he doesn’t take it far enough when he explains that, *I* will say that we have Dick Bush to thank for ‘making’ al-Qaeda anything more than the riff-raff, rag-tag collection they started out as. Al-Qaeda (and all other groups like them) had been PREVENTED from establishing any sort of a legitimate presence in Mesopotamia as long as Saddam was around, but they have always operated with protection in Afghanistan and those tribal areas along the northern border with Pakistan. And yeah, it DOES concern me that Pakistan has loose NUKES. It SHOULD concern everyone.

All of that said, my larger point is that Obama’s acute observation of the potential disaster that can result from political/religious extremism in close proximity to NUCLEAR WEAPONS, does NOT make him a ‘warmonger’ any more than it makes me a war monger. I’ve not heard Obama calling for military or any other kind of interference anywhere EXCEPT this bed of potential world calamity. So the chicken-shits on this board who continue to perpetrate such lies and distortion are as much a problem as the terrorists in my own opinion, if only by exercising their complete ignorance and total lack of understanding in context and sub context.

Part 2 of 2 re Frank Cajon

I still don’t know how much of a ‘solution’ there is in a military presence in the area, but I do know that a military presence isn’t enough by itself. An expenditure on a REAL Peace Corps, (Peace Corps being part of the defense spending that is so desperately needed) and closer relations with allies in the area, along with some diplomatic understanding of where the root of the problem lies, is what is called for. We can’t possibly expect to accomplish that without the support of the international community. Obama made that much clear. The reality there is that for now, we don’t HAVE any ‘allies’ to speak of, because Dick Bush has spent the last 8 years shitting on and pissing off the rest of the globe. The atrocities that the US Military/Contractors and the CIA has committed in so many places over these past 7 or so years is beyond measure. Torture at Bragam in Afghanistan, torture at Abu Ghraib in Iraq, torture at Guantanamo, and all of the other secret locations that the CIA operates. Do we REALLY think that the rest of the world doesn’t have a few million reasons to hate us, even if (thank the gods I guess) most people have enough sense to know that it isn’t the US *public* perpetrating the abuses, but rather the US Cabal that highjacked us?

As an aside, (though still in a similar vein) I attended a talk earlier this afternoon presented by MARK JUERGENSMEYER, Director, Orfalea Center for Global & International Studies, here at my campus. He is a Professor of Sociology, Global and International Studies, and Religious Studies. I gave that long introduction just to say that his work of the past decade or so has focused specifically on the ‘terror’ components of religious extremism. The talk was excellent, though I really only went to catch-up on any new work/research he’s accomplished in the past several months, since I’m familiar thoroughly familiar with all of his other work. (as a protégé if nothing more). I had to leave before the Q & A session got to me, but I’ll be able to follow up later in the week. My own (on-going) inquiry of him and other experts who study this stuff, is just how much of this extremism is actually “religious”, and how much of it is politically motivated, and how it connects. In Islam, there is little daylight between religion and politics, but the same can be said for the Christian fundamentalists, who number about 40 million, right here in the good ol’ USA. It isn’t an easy question, and has to be examined,  from the view of multiple disciplines. These disciplines are very much interconnected. I think Obama needs some advice from this side of the academy, and I’m confident that he knows how to make use of it.

Troublesum,

I’m quite familiar with the Blowback Trilogy by Chalmers Johnson, and I’ve had multiple opportunities to discuss the contents with him in both lecture and seminar format. So it would appear to be that it is YOU who are hopelessly and perpetually on the ‘slow track’. Even Scheer’s book has been out for some months now, so I’ve obviously read that as well. Maybe you should read them all again. Your posts make it clear that you’re a slow learner. Doesn’t do a whole lot of good to read the stuff if your cognitive capabilities are so lame that you can’t even connect the dots when they are already placed for you.

Do either Scheer or Johnson make the claim that the MILITARY is the ‘one thing that has ruined our country?” Let me help you with that. NO! The point is that the imperial mindset of the war hawks and neo-cons, (beginning long before 9/11) has thrown us into the abyss, but that is HARDLY the ‘one thing’ that has done it.

So find somebody who claims (as you apparently believe) that we don’t need a military at all, and quote them. Don’t misuse the information provided by conscientious intellectuals to back up your hysterical rhetoric. It just shows your own ignorance. We ALL know that the US spends more on ‘defense’ (which is really OFFENSE) than the rest of the world combined, and that China could still kick our asses. So, when you have the Pentagon books, and can break all of these statistics down for us, then let us know.  For now though, you’re just doing your standard parroting of what other people say or write, without enough brain cells to connect the concepts to the information provided, to put forth an opinion of your own. It’s SO transparently LAME!!

Inherit,

You ask “how” can we rid ourselves of the dysfunctionality of the Electoral College?

One word: negotiate.

Inherit,

“But the actions were ECONOMIC, not martial.  Japan’s response was violent.  I don’t think you want to use that logic because it can then be used to justify the war on Iraq that both you AND I agree was illegal from Day 1….”

I won’t replay my responses (from my perspective, you have just reiterated what I feel I’ve fully refuted about the Taliban and War of 1812).

As to the embargo on Japan, during that time, Japan was at war, the embargo was a direct threat to Japan who would not be able to sustain itself without steel (and other reseources) the US was depriving it. I don’t justify the bombing of Pearl Harbor (I’m repeating myself), but merely pointing out that perhaps the closest thing to a “justified” war (WWII) that the US has been involved in is not all that clear cut. While not condoning it, I don’t see Japan’s actions as comparable to what the US did in Iraq.

If you look at the UN charter (the US is a signatory of that charter as you know and thus it is US Federal law making any break with it a crime and in this case a war crime) you’ll note that conditions allowing one nation to attack another are very narrow as to almost outlaw war.

Only a clear imminant threat or invasion by another nation can be justified as defensive. As we know neither was the case with Afghanistan or Iraq. Yes, it appears Al Qaeda was ensconced in Afghanistan, but again Afghanistan had not invaded the US. There were other, and I would argue much better, approaches to Al Qaeda than invading Afghanistan.

I provided you with an analogy concerning terrorists in the US, who live here, are harbored, if you will, here, and who have been tied to terrorists attacks against Cuba. Would we allow a nation, even a much larger, powerful nation, to invade the US if we did not turn these terrorists over?

International law is difficult because geopolitics is uneven; and powerful nations can game the system or ignore it all together. That is exactly what the US has done and is doing. And pols like McCain and Obama expect that that kind of power will be theirs once in the Oval Office.

That’s the problem that will never be addressed by these two parties or candidates. My argument here is that a Nader on the stage would force the discussion on many of these vital issues that are otherwise ignored by the establishment candidates.

Max,

One word: How?

Not speeches, grandiose ideas, noble philosophy, but How?

How do we get the legislatures in Alaska, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Momtana, etc, to vote to KILL their states’ power and influence that’s all disproportionate to their population?

What is in it for them to strip their states of power? Noble Ideas?  Get real—these are POLITICIANS!  How are you going to get Sarah Palin on your side?  Or Haley Barbour (Mississippi)?

Tell me how to change THEIR minds first, and then maybe I’ll listen to more.

JS:

I just don’t see how.  I think PR would be far better for our nation, but I don’t see how to get there.  Those 16 states will be EVEN MORE loathe to give up their 1, 2 or 3 Congressman than the EC.  Or, more significantly, their 2 Senators.  Wyoming, with just over 500,000 people, has the same number of Senators as California, with, what? 35,000,000??? that’s SEVENTY TIMES bigger!

Inherit, “And that’s why we are stuck with a 2 party system, an insane electoral college concept….and Max’s inability to deal with his futile frustration over it.”

Inherit, the “futility” is all yours as is all too apparent in this quote from you.

What humans create that can change. The only thing that can stop that is a lack of imagination and the will to carry through.

ITW,

Actually, PR could be achieved with the electoral college if we really wanted to, but the math would get complicated, and it might require using a run-off system for presidential elections. And i don’t think it would be impossible to get a few of those states to go along with the idea…particularly the ones dominated by independents.

In any case, it would make more sense to start using PR from the bottom up than from the top down. PR could be implemented first for the House, then the Senate, and only then the Presidency. Issues would work themselves out along the way.

And anyhow, the point isn’t to destroy the Democratic and Republican Parties (though that wouldn’t be a bad thing). In most PR countries, a few major parties generally dominate the political landscape; the difference is that those parties must take minor parties into account if they hope to govern. And voters have a reason to belong to a minor party or support the candidates of a minor party. No vote is wasted; consequently, most everyone votes.

That is the crux of the metaphorical biscuit. Even our convoluted system would work if everyone voted, but we don’t. Realistically, most votes don’t count for much in our system…unless it is a close race, battleground state, etc. (even then, the parties gerrymander to avoid all those situations when they can)

Max,

Yes, he’s the guy…misspelled the last name.

Max,

You have an interesting view of history.  It’s true, of course, that relations between the US and Japan were deteriorating, and the US was making economic war on Japan (which had engaged in illegal attacks and an invasion of China—illegal by the standards of International Law of the day, not today).

But the actions were ECONOMIC, not martial.  Japan’s response was violent.  I don’t think you want to use that logic because it can then be used to justify the war on Iraq that both you AND I agree was illegal from Day 1.  I got eviscerated by friend and opponent alike when I defended and supported Jimmy Carter’s plea, in March 2003, to NOT attack Iraq, and wait for the UN inspectors.

As for the Revolution: Again, a tyranny imposes harsher and harsher rule on a society and then sends armed troops to crush.  That’s an invasion.  Of course, the outcome determines whether they were heroic freedom fighters or traitors—who wins determines that.

In 1812, a nation from across the Atlantic invaded the US and burned our capital.  That’s usually considered an invasion.

Finally, while the Taliban did not enact 9/11, they kept the nest where the egg was hatched.  They fed, supported and protected Al Qaeda.  They gave AC a safe haven and did NOT throw them out, turn them over to the US, or even offer to help us.  That IS an act of war under international law.

What is especially sickening is that Iran offered to help the US at that time, as the Taliban are mortal enemies (in part the Shi’ia/Sunni conflict).  Not only were they rebuffed by the idiot Bush administration, blowing a GOLDEN opportunity to undo the damage in our relations since 1979, but Bush named Iran as part of his “Axis of Evil” immediately after in January 2002, further destroying our chances at a reconcilliation.

I have nothing against proportional representation.  And doing away with the EC?  ABSO-F’IN-LUTELY!

But, again, the problem is the limitations of the Constitution.  Do away with the EC and 16 states (the number with 5 or less E-Votes) lose their influence.  They represent 62 E-Votes, 21 million citizens.

That’s 11.5% of the Electoral College and 7% of the national population. Yet they can prevent the Constitution from being changed because you only need 13 states to say “NO” and the amendment dies.

Remember, the USC says 75% of the states must approve an amendment.  We think of that as meaning 75% of the people—or 225-230 million.  Therefore it SHOULD take 75 million to block an amendment.  But it doesn’t.  It takes less than 1/3 of that.

So…do you think states like Montana, Wyoming, N&S;Dakota, Delaware, Vermont and Alaska (!) are going to give up their influence of their 3 EC votes? Or Hawaii, Idaho, Maine or NH are going to give up their 4?  Or Nev, Utah, Nebraska, New Mexico or W.Virginia are going to give up their 5?  NFW!!!

And that’s why we are stuck with a 2 party system, an insane electoral college concept….and Max’s inability to deal with his futile frustration over it.  You’d have to get at least 4 of those states and ALL the others to agree to replace the EC with a popular vote.  Yeah, I can just see Sarah Palin convincing her fellow moose-fits to lose their ability to suck the lower 48 dry….

Max,

The first Republican debate ( using the word debate loosely here) was engaged in the topic of what kind of torture was acceptable, this is the kind of mental message our government provides to us, with the help of the msm.

You hit the nail on the head I was uncomfortable with the debate especially when it went into hawk mode. You are right,  discussing going to war is programed to seem normal, a cake walk, like going shopping at Wal Mart buying notmade in USA products.  Seems sick in me mind, but what do I know?

I agree with your comment below:

“We are so steeped in this that we accept debates which are mostly about waging war as if this is “normal”. Tragic. We can and need to be better.”

Inherit,

Little more history about the War of 1812 (started by the US):
“The War of 1812 is one of the forgotten wars of the United States. The war lasted for over two years, and while it ended much like it started; in stalemate; it was in fact a war that once and for all confirmed American Independence. The offensive actions of the United States failed in every attempt to capture Canada. On the other hand, the British army was successfully stopped when it attempted to capture Baltimore and New Orleans. There were a number of American naval victories in which American vessels proved themselves superior to similarly sized British vessels. These victories coming after victories in the Quasi War (an even more forgotten war) launched American naval traditions.”

http://www.multied.com/1812/Index.html

This was a war of US expansionism - like just about every other US conflict involvement.

By Inherit The Wind, September 27 at 4:22 pm #
Max,

“If you want to believe that the attack on Pearl Harbor was justified, or that the British invasion and BURNING of Washington was justified, or that the Taliban was not only actively shielding the Taliban, they had been taken over by it, then I cannot help you with your delusions.”

Response - let’s take these one at a time. First I don’t justify the bombing of Pearl Harbor, I’m simply stating a historical fact. Since the Nuremberg trial and Interntional law had yet to be established to address these matters, we can simply state it from the perspective of the two nations - Japan and the USA. We know whose story gets the most play and why, but the facts are still there for us to decide cause and effect.

The War of 1812 was very complex and controversial within the US. Again, I am not justifying the actions of either side, but this was not a simple matter of an invasion.

The Revolution was clearly a revolt against the empire by colonist who were subjects of the empire - not indiginous and therefore such a revolt could hardly be called a defense of the homeland - I see no logical argument that would contend otherwise.

As far as the American allies, aka Taliban, I can only say that mixing them with Al Qaeda is tricky. The Taliban did not, as you know, plot and execute 9/11. The US invasion and subsequent bombing of Afghan villages (where thousands of innocent Afghans were killed) would seem a clear violation of US treaties and UN Charter since Afghanistan DID NOT invade or attack the US to the best of any historical records.

Inherit, we, obviously have very different standards for justifying invasion, intervention and war.

US foreign policy has been primarily one of expansionism. It has heightened over the years. The Cold War clouded some of the activities with proxy wars.

We have documents which speak to the hope of what we could be, but our policies have been intentionally hegemonic and aggressive. We are so steeped in this that we accept debates which are mostly about waging war as if this is “normal”. Tragic. We can and need to be better.

A voice of reason on the stage would have brought much value to these debates, to the American public and to the world at-large.

floydw asked:

“Can anyone explain why a Jewish holiday might delay a decision on the bailout package?”

McCain and Lebierman are the guests of honor, so we put everything on hold, it seems multitasking is very hard for some folks.

By jackpine savage, September 27 at 4:50 pm #

I think the fellow you’re thinking of, in terms of proportional rep and run-off is Hendrik Hertzberg, who writes for the New Yorker. His book Politics - Observations and Arguments is pretty illuminating particularly where here details the flaws of our representational government (which is hardly representational of most of the people); but I would go a step further and say that participatory democracy is the gold standard. How that’s acheived would take more than a simple post.

Always good to talk to those who’ve not only researched but thought about democracy. Someday we may even have it here in the USA.

By troublesum, September 27 at 2:56 pm #

The political system is set up to ensure only a two party system except when it isn’t.  Senator Sanders of Vermont is an independent socialist from Vermont who usually gets 60-65% of the vote.  Ventura, the former two term governor of Minnisota was an independent.  There is lots of room for independent thinking in this country.
—————————————————————————-
Indeed. For that matter, Lieberman also won as an independent. So what are the Green/Peace and Freedom people whining about?

Max,

Amen, amen, amen.  The only significant change the the US would have to make to institute some form of proportional representation would be the dismantlement of the electoral college.

I think that even implementing it for the nominations of the major parties would have a huge impact on American politics. For example, i do not think that Edwards would have won many states, but i do think that with a PR primary system he would have garnered enough support to be a force. Even just a third force in that situation would have necessitated either Obama or Clinton actually adopting policy positions that Edwards favored. (the same could be said for Kucinich)

Another change that i would love to see is “at large” Congressional elections. 25 Senators elected at large by proportional representation would create a sea change in the landscape. Gridlock broken…especially if those 25 were required to be independent (is that asking too much?). People of conscience would have a reason and a fighting chance to be involved. I think Ralph Nader would make a horrible president, but i would love to see him be a Senator at Large…even just to call “bullshit”.

And it is true about what PR does to participation numbers. A good many European democracies regularly see turnout in the upper 90’s. It keeps the fringes from taking power, but it also gives the fringes a voice. This works mostly for good…as exemplified by the EuroGreens.

The founders wrote a living document; they did not write their commandments in stone. Proportional Representation had not been thought of yet, but if it had, i’m fairly certain that it would have had founding proponents. (I’m looking at you Franklin.)

How to break the two party stranglehold is another matter all together…

*H. Hertzenberg has written extensively on the matter and is well worth reading.

McCain is a lunatic, and Palin a clueless lunatic.  Look at how hot-headed McCain became toward the end of the debate.  We need *rational* people in our government, not those who pray to sky-gods and who hold convictions.  Conviction is the enemy: look at the convictions of religious nutbags, the convictions of murderers, and convictions in politics: it only leads to chaos.

The last thing America needs is another white, rich, out of touch, Republican quasi-incumbent.

Max,

If you want to believe that the attack on Pearl Harbor was justified, or that the British invasion and BURNING of Washington was justified, or that the Taliban was not only actively shielding the Taliban, they had been taken over by it, then I cannot help you with your delusions.

If you don’t see the difference between an economic boycott and being straifed with .75 caliber machine guns (or bigger), I hope you never have to find out the difference in your own flesh.

PatrickHenry, September 27 at 3:47 pm #

I almost forgot what an arrogant defender of zionist Israel you were ITW.
*************************************

You know full well you cannot prove a negative. 
I cannot prove the North Koreans or Robert Mugabe or Hu Jin To weren’t behind it either.  I can offer just as sound an argument for Castro to be behind, as insane as that may sound.  Because it’s just as loonie.

There is NO evidence that either Israel or the USA was involved in bombing US territory.  Nor is there any motive. NONE!  (except in the neo-nazi racist minds of crack-pots like you who believe Jews are inherently evil in their DNA).

I also cannot prove the Great Pumpkin didn’t do it, or God, or Jesus, or Muhammed, or Sidhartha.  Or little green men from the moons of planets surrounding Rigel or Betelgeuse.

With that long, you should hire out to argue for Intelligent Design and Creationism as “science”.

Frank

I didn’t argue proportional representation. But if you do some research I think you’ll find that you can have a form of proportional represention without a parlimentary form of government.

Since representative government, certainly what we have here is deeply flawed, I won’t go into all the details concerning alternatives.

But on the simple case of multiple parties, a change from plurality to majority and instant run off voting and you’ve solved the dilemma of McCain/Obama lessor of two evil choices.

By ranking first, second, third, etc. you want you allow more than two parties to compete on a level playing field against the “major” parties. You eliminate this hog-wash about “spoiler”, and if results in San Francisco are acurate, more people come out to vote (more choices), people vote their conscience instead of “lesser/evil” calculations. All the candidates are kept on their toes because the field is OPEN (as are the debates).

Bill Clinton in 1991 received a plurality and was hounded for 8 years. He won the first election because of the 20% Perot garnered. With Instant Run-Off voting a clear winner with a broad-based majority would have been in office for those years - who ever that might have been. But there is a strong liklihood we would have had a Labor Party, a Green Party, a Libertarian, Conservative Party, and perhaps an Independent party. Choices!!! And the winner would have a majority of the American people’s vote - if not as first choice as second.

Again, change plurality to majority (get rid of the electoral college) and implement national IRV.

First, I repeat, you’d be hard pressed to say the US to find a conflict or War whereby the US did not provoke. This is a legacy which needs to be carefully studied. We continue to accept endless war as part of the American heritage. While it is the latter, it needn’t and I’d argue shouldn’t be our future. Our candidates from the two major parties continue to foist this chest pounding Commander In Chief and those partisans out there seem to provide cover (Obama needs to look tough… - who says?).

1) The War for Independence 1775-1881
Response - To Protect and defend the homeland????

2) The Barbary Pirates’ War
Response - To Protect and defend the homeland???

3) The War of 1812 1812-1814
Response - Again, to protect and defend the homeland??? This may come the closest to “national security”, but it was not an attack by Britain that started the war.

4) The Civil War 1861-1865
Response - This comes close if you didn’t read my post where I said an invading sovereign nation. The civil war was a constitutional crisis that is arguably more about empire and expansionism and economics that anything to do with protecting and defending the homeland.

5) The Pancho Villa border raids.

Response - After the US invaded and confiscated Mexican territory. Who exactly was invading whose country???

6) Pearl Harbor was US territory attacked, Attu Island was actually invaded, so WWII has to be excluded.

Response - The US had first cut off all steel supplies to Japan, thus declaring war on Japan which was followed by the attack on Pearl Harbor. (Again, I’d ask, how did the US come by this territory?

7)There was the Taliban protecting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan who attacked us—-oh….you’re one of those tin-foil-hatters who thinks Israel and the CIA bombed the WTC…(crackpots)

Response - Al Qaeda is not a sovereign nation or a group of nationals. It used terrorist tactics and there has been a war on the “tactics” ever since. Not exactly qualifying as defending the homeland against a sovereign nation’s attack. And because war was how the approach to Al Qaeda was framed, the US is unraveling. A war on terror is unending if it continues to be pursued. Which is why Obama has fallen for and continues to promulgate this horrific Bush/Cheney war crime.

Arguably, the bombing of Iraq (and many other nations) during the Clinton administration could rightly be called acts of terror against the people of Iraq.

By Inherit The Wind, September 27 at 2:50 pm #

“OOPS!!! There was the Taliban protecting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan who attacked us—-oh….you’re one of those tin-foil-hatters who thinks Israel and the CIA bombed the WTC…(crackpots)”

Prove they weren’t involved.  Your proof is based on GWB’s explanation, nothing more.

There is a significant body of evidence that Israel was involved with elements within our own government.

I almost forgot what an arrogant defender of zionist Israel you were ITW.

What kind of self deception does it take to rationalize Obama’s call for increased defense spending when you know that that is one thing which is ruining the country?  Does voting for Obama entail lying to yourself?  Refer to THE PORNOGRAPHY OF POWER by Robert Scheer and NEMESIS: THE LAST DAYS OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC by Chalmers Johnson.  There are many things “broken down” in this country, but the military is not one of them.

Max: Let’s be clear. I am not a Democrat and not a fan of Obama. I don’t like his views on foreign policy, though I find them slightly better than the goosestepping we will get with a fascist like McPalin. I am an isolationist. I am a socialist. I am against war in any form and have demonstrated against wars since I was old enough to stand, and now do it from a wheelchair.

The ruling class has been spending money on bombs and letting newborns die for lack of medical care. The standard of living for the working class has plummetted and we are in hock to our eyeballs to the crooked bankers, who run to the fascist fourth Reich when they see that now they, too, are broke. They are stealing from the working class to feed the gluttonous elite. I avow a new socialist, labor party and it will not happen overnight but the collapse of the greed-rotted capitalist experiment has opened the door. So, we have an election in five weeks. There is no good option. What do we do?

I have decided: two choices, one is sit here, blog away and bitch about how bad the choice is and not vote, enabling Bush III to put the vapid beauty queen in office in two years when he croaks. The other choice is vote for Obama. I do not like this option either, but McKinney has no chance and he does. He will at least not be Bush III, but I can only at this point in my life work within the system and through civil disobedience for change. We need to see the Patriot Act go away. We need to tax the fuck out of the Bougeiosie, till they hurt. We need to get out of Iraq. We need to shut down Wall St greed and save the planet. He won’t do all of this, but he will do part of it and we will have four years to organize and gain strength for a Labor Party that can take bigger steps. I am a belief in class struggle but also pragmatic. I am above all not an apologist of the two party system simply because I intend to vote for one of their candidates. Point your finger at someone who deserves it.

Frank, you asked below

Frank,

Your comment way down on the thread:

“Leefeller,”

“I’m not sure how you can construe Obama as a hawk unless your definition of ‘hawk’ is a President willing to use the military when needed.”

Look, Obama had to show some toughness, to address the comfort zones of the chicken little crowd, I am an Obama supporter, but I do not have to agree with him on every issue.  It is my feeling we should use the military in defense when threatened and not be the ones doing the threatening, sure I know the big stick theory, but his soundbite comments on Georgia bothered me.

Seems to me Russia would be a much more worthy friend, by the way I believe Iran could also, instead of going back into the cold war divisive fear stance.

Yes, we should not hesitate to use our military for defense only when attacked our world wide meddling is costing us way to much money, usually to promote speical interests, like oil all in the name of a posture dance.  I never voted to become the worlds bully police man, I would much rather cut back on the military and promote infrastructure here from schools to roads.

Evidently, I am not the only one who saw hawk mode of the debate, you can read Tony Witchers comments below. “less hawkish” did he say?

The political system is set up to ensure only a two party system except when it isn’t.  Senator Sanders of Vermont is an independent socialist from Vermont who usually gets 60-65% of the vote.  Ventura, the former two term governor of Minnisota was an independent.  There is lots of room for independent thinking in this country.

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”  Emerson

L.A. Times: Negotiations on bailout bog down — Some Democrats join congressional Republicans in seeking changes to President Bush’s $700-billion plan. Passage may be delayed until Wednesday.

...But with no clear consensus on a deal emerging, and with the Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashanah falling on Tuesday, some Capitol Hill aides speculated that a final deal may not come to a vote before Wednesday. The negotiations over the rescue plan were clouded Thursday by the emergence of a Republican-backed proposal for a government-organized insurance program to be paid for by Wall Street. Proponents, who also called for further deregulation and more tax breaks for business, said their approach would not require billions of taxpayer dollars.

Can anyone explain why a Jewish holiday might delay a decision on the bailout package?

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fi-bailout27-2008sep27,0,1421273.story

Max Shields, September 27 at 11:26 am #

Of the hundreds of wars and conflicts the US has been involved in name 3 that had anything to do with protecting the homeland.
**********************************
You mean excluding…:

1) The War for Independence 1775-1881
2) The Barbary Pirates’ War
3) The War of 1812 1812-1814
4) The Civil War 1861-1865
5) The Pancho Villa border raids.

OOPSS!  That’s 5.  You said 3…Maybe if you exclude those 5….

Nope. Pearl Harbor was US territory attacked, Attu Island was actually invaded, so WWII has to be excluded.

OOPS!!! There was the Taliban protecting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan who attacked us—-oh….you’re one of those tin-foil-hatters who thinks Israel and the CIA bombed the WTC…(crackpots)

Sure there are a lot of wars we fought we shouldn’t have.  But while every war is evil, the defender isn’t necessarily wrong.

By PatrickHenry, September 27 at 6:58 am #

The shameless pandering to Israel specific and the demonization of Iran was shameful of both candidates.
——————————————————————————
Yeah, but if you watched carefully, Obama was less hawkish than McCain. The question Leher asked was how does Iran threaten U.S. security. McCain answered that Iran was an “existential threat” to Israel. I’m thinking to myself that the question was about U.S. security, not Israeli security and that McCain was completely identifying them. Obama spoke second. You and I would have both loved to hear Obama say that McCain did not answer the question but instead started talking about Israel. He did not do that, but did manage to express his support for Israel without going all hysterical about the Holocaust, at least.

Incidentally, he was right that Kissinger DID say there should be high-level talks with Iran without preconditions.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/26/1456431.aspx

I’m certain that Obama said, “We must make sure that our military is ready for the next war.”  People who have fantasies about Obama being a peace candidate are not going to hear him say things like that even when they are there in person.  It is beyond belief what people are projecting onto this mild mannered guy who weighs and measures every word he speaks more carefully than any American politician in recent history.  What we see is what we are going to get but too many of you have stars in your eyes.  There was nothing in what he said last night that would indicate that he will change the direction of either the foreign or domestic policies we’ve seen for the past twenty five years.  He’s a nice guy.  He has a completely different style than either Bush or Clinton, but style has little to do with basic policy making.  Any changes he makes are likely to be cosmetic.  Given the choice between him and McCain, anyone who hasnt’t been living in a cave for the past eight years would choose him, but lets wake up and get rid of our illusions.  Our military posturing in the world is not going to change.  In fact he said that one of the reasons we have to get things in order economically is so that we can continue to be an effective millitay power in the world.  I don’t suppose most of you heard that either.

Max Shields, September 27 at 9:16 am #

Take a look at the Constitution and come back when you’ve begun to get an understanding of governance. You won’t see anything in there about Democratic or Republican parties, btw.
**************************************
I certainly don’t need a civics lesson from YOU Max Headroom!  Perhaps I should give you one instead.

The reason there are only two parties is very simple: We break our country up into states and each state gets 2 senators.  Each state is divided up into congressional districts by population but even the smallest states get at least one congressman.

What this means is there is no proportional representation.  How many votes a party gets nationally is meaningless in the Presidential, Senatorial and Congressional elections.  Therefore it’s win/lose in the Electoral College and in the Senate elections and in each congressional district.

Unlike parliamentary proportional systems, where a party can come in third and STILL gets seats, in the US there’s no room for coming in third.

Look at the Senate: Even when the GOP held a majority, they actually only represented 35-40% of the American people, where the Dems represented 60-65%.  Is that fair?  No, but it’s the Constitution.

In the EC, win a majority of the state, win the state’s EC votes.  In 1916, Hughes lost to Wilson because California when to Wilson by 3,000 votes.  We saw how Gore lost to Bush because of less than 600 votes in Florida.

The two-party system exists BECAUSE of the Constitution and how it structured our elections.  It is a natural outgrowth and consequence of it.  Even in the UK, which is far more proportional, there is barely a 3rd party.  Only in countries that are truly proportional, like Israel, do you have a true multi-party system.

So, Max, skip the civics lesson.  It’s clear I have a far better grounding in the Constitutional foundation of the two-party system than you do.

By Frank Cajon, September 27 at 1:41 pm #

Nader is only a “Bush shill” when you think the Dem party is the party for the working guy and must get in at all costs.

Truth - follow the money! It doesn’t lead to Nader.

As for Obama and war, you don’t need a script of the debate to know where Obama stands on Afganistan and everything on the table regarding Iran that he regards as a “rogue state” supporting terrorism and a nuclear threat to the region - exactly as McCain thinks (and as W “thinks”). Who the hell is Obama to call any nation “rogue” after what the US has done?

Yea, he’ll have someone talk to them (like Bush is doing) before using those options.

How about his notion of “war on terror”. Straight out of the Bush/Cheney playbook. How you frame it determines how you approach it. For Obama it’s a war and the use of military force is how you approach it.

Frank do you need to be drawn a picture. Obama is telling you exactly what he’ll do. He’ll invade Pakistan (“if he has high value targets”) and he’s not satisfied with what the government of Pakistan is doing.

So, imagine Cuba saying the US has terrorists who have attempted and succeeded to blow up Cuban airliners. And they will, invade the US if the terrorists are not handed over to them.

McCain is a strawman for the real problem - American imperialism. There’s a defintion. Look it up and see for yourself if American foreign policy doesn’t fit the bill to a T.

As far as being against war (war is fought within) G. Anderson: If you really believe that than you’ll vote for neither of these war-makers.

Btw, you were smart not to pick a “good” war, because frankly I don’t the US has ever been in a war to “protect and defend the homeland” from foreign invasion.

The essential qualities our next president must possess are intelligence, vision and integrity.  Genuine vision is impossible in the absence of intelligence; you cannot see in an issue clearly until you can see it in context. In an atmosphere as dynamic and dangerous as that which characterizes the current geo-political environment, clear vision is essential. Blind allegiance to ideology distorts vision; this is the bane of the neocon mentality.

Ultimately, reasoned values and an intimate understanding of principle are the essential factors and distinguishing hallmarks of critical decision making. For this reason, genuine humility emerges as the indispensable and distinguishing quality of authentic leadership. Humility is an aspect of character. Character is crucial. Integrity is the quintessential aspect of character. One cannot deal decisively and genuinely with exterior circumstances until he has explored and dealt honestly with his interior dimensions and reality. Temperament is a window on character. The more lacking in integrity; the more insecure the temperament.

Palin is disqualified by virtue of intelligence.  McCain is disqualified by virtue of temperament. I am not suggesting that experience does not matter, indeed it does. However, to allow “experience” to trump virtue (intelligence, vision, integrity) is a recipe for utter disaster.  Witness George W. Bush, he was qualified by dent of his experience, but disqualified by lack of virtue. Obama is qualified. Nader, when factoring in experience, is even more so.

I do not have a transcript, but did not hear Obama make any statement about the military and any next war. I think he was too nice and McPalin had nothing to say but made his only two points (earmarks for Illinois and the surge) so repetitively that he has burned them into the watcher’s brain. Obama should have done this with Keating Five and Wall St deregulation, and WMDs.

Nader? WTF? I already have seat belts. I bought his books. He is last century and gave us Bush. A GOP shill, and has been dumped by the Green Party in an effort to become politically relevant. McKinney (who I voted for in my state primary) is a minor-league socialist, a hothead who needs seasoning and has made bad decisions in surrounding herself with fringe members when she is trying to gain a name for herself. Barr is actually mellowed, but at heart just another Neocon who sees that Bush/Cheney Reich has gutted the wallets of middle America, lied about Iraq, and ran the Constitution through a shredder.
In Europe there are worker parties, Labor parties, theat play big roles in governments. Canada has one. In Great Britain, the Labor Party just took power away from Blair after he had been Bush’s lackey for years. We need one here. The time has come. The two major parties have given active and tacit approval of the theft of our nation’s resources for too long and the workers need another option. Contact your union. Get involved in the labor movement and socialist cause.

Wish I knew,

Your brilliant comments @wish i knew, September 27 at 10:20 am tells me that you DO ‘know’! You don’t need to be a scientist (though it helps - but common sense still rules, or SHOULD) to understand that the science of politics (or people) is no different than any other at the foundation, which is the BALANCE/EQUILIBRIUM that you mention here.

•  “…Opposing forces are necessary to create balance. You throw a 3rd thing in there and you can’t find equilibrium. The 3rd thing can only help one side and hurt the other, but it can’t lend stability in any case. I am sure there are scentists and physicists out there who would love to chime in here, feel free, I am neither and merely throwing out what appears to be common sense in my own mind.

You’re also joining me in being officially sick of the whining about the makeup and number of the political parties represented in the populace. It’s pretty amazing to me, to hear people like Max Shields and others continue to sprout this bullshit, when in fact there are FIVE so-called political parties represented in the current election campaigns.

•  Republican – McSame and Palin. (McCain is the SAME and Palin is about as fringe as they come – like Big Foot or something)

•  Democrat – Obama and Biden, representing the traditional and the changing Democratic Party.

•  Libertarian – Bob Barr. (used to be republican)

•  Green – Cynthia McKinney (used to be a democrat) and her running mate, whose name I can’t remember at the moment.

•  Peace and Freedom – Nader and Gonzalez. Nader has run under various tickets in the past 4 presidential elections, and presumably this 5th is his first run as a Peace and Freedom candidate.

That is FIVE political parties represented in this election alone. And, they do NOT represent FIVE DIFFERENT ideologies!! Three of them have been representatives of the other parties before. Again, their basic ideologies are the SAME.

Yesterday I discovered a tiny flyer/announcement for an appearance by Ralph Nader, tomorrow, here in my university community. Here are his ‘issues’ as presented on the tiny flyer.

~ Single-Payer Health Care.
~End Iraq War Now
~Reverse US policy in Middle East
~Crackdown on Corporate Crime
~No Nukes
~Solar Power Now
~Defend Civil Liberties
~Living Wage for All
~Cut the Bloated Military Budget

Now looking at ALL of those issues, there are less than a handful that the Democratic Party and our candidates don’t ALSO put at the forefront of the ‘issues’. (there’s no mention of the tanked economy by the way).

TBC

2 of 2 re: wish i knew, September 27 at 10:20 am

Obama has mostly refrained, (not entirely, but for the most part) from focusing on US Policy in the Middle East, at least in *specific terms*, aside from the unequivocal disapproval of the War on Iraq. And, it is THAT (ME Policy) which has been the hallmark of Nader’s platform. He’s viscerally anti-Israel, and I can comprehend and empathize with that. I don’t think it accomplishes much, and I have my own ideas on how to deal with Israel, but that’s for a later time. I simply don’t want the entire US agenda to be about foreign policy in the Middle East or anywhere else. We have too much stuff to fix here. Both Barack and Michelle Obama have made THAT point, over and over again.

The last thing with ‘cutting the bloated military budget’ is about as ambiguous and anything gets. We keep hearing this shit, but it never comes with any knowledge/reference of just HOW this bloated budget actually plays out in dollars. I mean, ANYBODY or ENTITY can (and SHOULD) have a ‘budget’. How and whether or not they follow it is the reality. I’ve already suggested that the billions in the military budget are OBVIOUSLY not being spent on the PEOPLE of the military!! No, it’s all about contractors for WEAPONS systems and other similar contract services.

Single-Payer healthcare is another one. Obama has said (again, more than once) that IF he were designing a health care program FROM SCRATCH, he would probably design it as a single payer plan. Since he didn’t, the plan that nearly ALL of the Democratic candidates put forth way back at the beginning of this thing, provides at least a semi-fix, until the entire system can be reformed. I’d be the first one to say that the system Obama has come up with doesn’t service EVERY person,  because it still requires people to pay some sort of premiums. There is little way around that, because nothing is free. We all know it isn’t perfect, and we also know that it’s still a whole lot better than the NOTHING that so many millions of Americans have now.

On every single one of these other issues, there is no difference between Nadar and the Democrats.

I’m actually going to attend this appearance by Ralph Nader tomorrow, just because I want to see if he’s saying anything at all different from what Barack Obama has been saying for the past two years. But at the end of the day, (as history has proven) these fringe groups that represent the primarily ideologies of the main body politick, (with only fringe differences) never do anything more than help the other side win.

Meantime, none of these fringe groups have any monopoly on the ‘I told ya so’ ideology. We can ALL say that! But after a point, it’s pretty useless. I agree that the ideologies represented on this board, (at least for the most part) would create a pretty fantastic Democratic Party. But I will also point to the fact that it was this VERY SAME type of eventual splintering into specific self-interests that crippled the Civil Rights Movement after the assassination of the Martin Luther King, Jr. We continue to engage in this same self-sabotage of our own interests, at our OWN peril.

By troublesum, September 27 at 8:11 am

•  “Obama: “We’ve got to make sure that the military is ready for the next war.” How could it not be ready with record defense budgets for the last 10 years?  Change we can believe in.  The mendacity of hope.”

Troublesum, I’m taking your word for this comment by Obama, even though I’ve missed it myself. I have heard him say that the military must be repaired/rebuilt/refortified/etc, etc. I’ve just missed the part about ‘being ready for the next war’ but since you’ve put quotation marks around it, I’m going to trust that you’re actually quoting him, even though I don’t know from where, or in what context.

Now, if you’ve been in a coma for the past decade, you might be forgiven for making this incredibly obtuse statement, “How could it not be ready with the record defense budgets for the last 10 years.” But, presumably you haven’t been in a coma, so you’re just a gadfly spoiler/bitcher. If you haven’t figured out that the military –the HUMAN component that makes up a military or any element of an armed service- is totally BROKEN, then you’re as broken as it is.

How could it not be ready? Well, do YOU think the historically inflated defense budget is actually being spent a real military? Do you have any figures or charts to provide for us, to show us how the ‘budget’ of the last 10 years has actually been SPENT? And if you do, does that jive with the number of homeless veterans living in the streets without any medical care for their wounds or other war related conditions? Do you think a military made up of less than 1% of the population, the SAME less than 1% that continues to be recycled through what is now 7 years of the LATEST wars is actually ‘ready’ to defend you on your own soil, if they needed to? Or, are you just fine with Blackwater taking over that job? Been on any military bases or hospitals lately troublesum? Well, there are food lines at the bases, and the wounded vets are thrown into moldy rodent infested broom closets, dependant on ‘contract personnel’ for care they DON’T receive.

For the record troublesum, (and this can be verified all over the f—-ing place, for anyone who cares to pay attention), the US military is BROKEN. We have trillions of dollars worth of USELESS WEAPONS, and that’s it. It began with Regan’s Star Wars, and Donald Rumsfeld has continually held that it was all we needed. I might also mention that it was your beloved Clinton’s who drastically reduced the human component of the military, which is why the same less than 1% is collateral for Dick Bushie’s wars of aggression in the quest for global US hegemony.

G.Anderson, September 27 at 12:20 pm #

No, because you’ll only continue to argue with my answers. As I’ve already said, I don’t believe in Warfare.

It’s my belief that the War is inside, and if you don’t fight the war on the inside, you’ll be doomed to fight it on the outside.
——————————————————————————

G,

I totally agree with you about war, my friend, and I consider this comment especially perceptive. Ultimately, war comes from within. Yes indeed!

In some ways having only two parties clarifies the situation. Republicans are the party of capital; Democrats are the party of democratic government. There is a natural tension between these forces which is expressed in the two-party system. As a country we oscillate between oligarchy and democracy. We have been in an oligarchic phase since 1968. Now I hope the worm is turning.

No, because you’ll only continue to argue with my answers. As I’ve already said, I don’t believe in Warfare.

It’s my belief that the War is inside, and if you don’t fight the war on the inside, you’ll be doomed to fight it on the outside.

Peace..

By G.Anderson, September 27 at 11:20 am #

Of the hundreds of wars and conflicts the US has been involved in name 3 that had anything to do with protecting the homeland.

I’m not a big supporter of war, and I do think it makes a difference who will be in the white house as commander in chief. McCain is clearly trigger happy.

Obama would rather talk first, but keep the powder dry.

I do think it matters to those that fight for our country, whether they fight for the people or for a plutocracy, whether they are used to secure Oil for the Oil companies, or protect their loved ones, whether they have been used and abused by lies and propaganda and then forgotten, or their service has been valued by the care and support they recieve after the fighting stops. 

It matters when the advice of their generals were ignored because it didn’t fit some deluded political theory, that they weren’t supplied with adequate body Armour, Humvee’s, and ordiance to do the job. And worst of all it matters that there were’nt adequeqate service men on the ground to do the job.

That’s why we needed a surge to begin with, because, Bush and Rumsfeld ignored Shineseki’s advice on how many troops we needed on the ground.

We should have never gone into Iraq in the first place, we should have just forced Saddam to resign, and leave the country, he offered to do just that.

And to top it off how many of our servicemen and women will be dying for years to come because those same lunatics who ran this war exposed them to Depleated Uranium.

By wish i knew, September 27 at 10:20 am #

“I am officially sick and tired of the whining that there should be more than 2 political parties.”

Tell that to almost every democracy in the world (with the exception of the US) who have, in some cases dozens of parties.

The problem “wish i knew” is that theses “parties” are really one party with simply different approaches to achieving he same ideological ends. At bottom, there are no substanitive differences in their end game. The US is not a nation among nations, but a dominant player in the world who calls the shots. Yes, McCain/repubs and Obama/dems go at it slightly differently, but it’s about one ideology driven by corporate/government confluence (Mussolini called this fascism, and he should know).

This is not a new development and Obama is not out of step with this empire-first polity. Both candidates are clear on what the masters want and they’ll deliver.

The difference between McCain and Obama, near as I can tell, is that McCain believes in all this, and Obama just believes that being President is more important than any of the other stuff - he’ll just follow orders from his neoliberal advisers.

That said, you seem to imply the hope of reforming the Democratic party to a separate party, one that might represent progressive values. That won’t happen. As I’ve said elected progressives in the Dem party are but a tiny minority. When push comes to shove, they fall in line with the powerful centrist/right wing party leaders. The party has always been mostly made up of right/centrist and neoliberal elitists.

PDA and other liberal Dem partisan activists have been under the delusion that FDR (the closest thing to a progressive Dem leader) represents the parties DNA. It’s hanging on to that delusion that keeps the progressive movement stalled in America. And so Obama becomes the illusion of change and wild liberalism - remember how the media and McCain keep saying Obama’s voting record is the most liberal?

That’s a typical non-argument. He’s not progressive. His voting record is lock step with his party. That party is only liberal if you’re a Republican. It’s a faux-label as I’ve tried to explain above.

But it all fits into this nice little mythology between the two parties. They provide a punch and judy show and call it democracy. And enough Americans follow along…and so it goes.

The real joke here is that the American economy is in free fall and these guys are talking as if it’ll be fixed over the weekend. That’s called insanity.

Re I wish i knew, September 27 at 10:20 am
============================================
Wish,

You and I are on the same page. I don’t see anything wrong with a three-party or an n-party system, but I also don’t see why more parties is better. I have been a Democrat all my life. I’m also an socialist internationalist like my parents. They were members of the Democratic party all their lives too. In the 30’s they were also members of the Communist Party USA. It was always like that. All kinds of people who love peace and freedom and justice can be in this party. What happened to our party was the 60’s and the Vietnam War. That was such a betrayal of the people that many divorced themselves from the Democratic Party at the time, and many such people post here. Barack Obama is reuniting our party and trying to heal this historical division, and I am here to help.

Obama won the debate on both style and substance. He was solid, unflappable and very, very presidential. He showed the spirit of bipartisanship that people want to see by agreeing with McCain 13 times, whereas McCain refused to even look at him or address him directly at all, and made all kinds of faces when Obama was talking. Many viewers who may not have studied the issues deeply and have only started tuning in to the presidential campaign (among whom are most of the “undecideds”) observed this, and Obama has made significant gains in the undecideds according to the CBS instapoll. http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/09/cbs_instapoll_edge_to_obama.html

I thought Obama did very well in the foreign policy part of the debate.  I was disappointed in the economy part that Obama did not attack McCain more strongly and with specifics. I think McCain managed to look better in this area than I would have expected.

Over-all, I think this debate helped Obama quite a bit because his performance would have impressed and reassured the kind of voters he is trying to get at this point, namely undecided voters who want a change, who are took their first good look at him in this debate.

I am officially sick and tired of the whining that there should be more than 2 political parties.

Max, you are absolutely correct, there is no mention of political party in the Constitution. This is simply because political parties are a false label for opposing ideologies.

Opposing forces are necessary to create balance. You throw a 3rd thing in there and you can’t find equilibrium. The 3rd thing can only help one side and hurt the other, but it can’t lend stability in any case. I am sure there are scentists and physicists out there who would love to chime in here, feel free, I am neither and merely throwing out what appears to be common sense in my own mind.

Most of the ideology I hear on this board could reclaim a Democratic party and make it something pretty fantastic. But there has been such a fantastic smear campaign that successfully attached a negative connotation to the word “Democrat” that now we feel some need to separate ourselves from that party and call ourselves something else. Something better. Something that insinuates an intellectual superority to the inane divel we hear from the current parties. We are “progressive.” or “green.” or in some cases even “libertarian” where it is applicable.

We have LET conservative ideology hijack even the Democratic Party, for cryin out loud, largely because many of us have abandoned an identification with it. I am guilty of it too.

And instead of fight to get back in there to change it back to what it once represented, or something even better, it is infinitely easier to just bitch about it, and throw support behind a fringe candidate who has no shot in hell to win or make any real measurable difference at all other than to allow people license to denounce whoever wins as not who they voted for. How is that noble? 

If you want to know where Nader was last night, he was on Real Time with Bill Maher.  And he had some great points, as always. I don’t take anything away from Nader’s life long crusades for corporate accountability among other issues. But he refuses to exist anywhere but in an “I told ya so” fringe; a place where he can talk until he is blue in the face, and feel as if he were part of the solution, but never TRULY has to do anything for which he must ultimately be held accountable. Failure is always his personal victory, and it makes me sad for all the more good he really could be doing.

That’s the most brilliant thing our forefathers set up for us - the ability to CHANGE our government if we didn’t like it. But it is up to us to function in such a way as is possible within the reality that we have, in many ways, allowed to be created for us.

The media prefer the Gops to the Dems.  The rich can steal more that way. And this is reflected in their evaluations.  Cnn took a poll and 51% thought Obama won vs 38% for McCain.  A senior Cnn researcher publically called this a ‘tie’, since Dems slightly ountnumbered Gops watching the pseudo-debate.

But the overall policies of the candidates are the same, since they are both funded and media supported by the ruling class, and promote their interests rather under the guise of promoting those of the population. 

Until progressive truthers adopt the basic understanding of the underlying power dynamics, as Troublesum, Max Shields, Pat Henry, etc have done, the populuation cannot defend itself against the predatory American power system.

Obama is intelligent, politically talented and articulate, but he supports, with marginal diffeences, the same policies as McCain.

As much as John McCain wants us to believe he is not really a Republican but a member of the new “Maverick” party, which I guess when you add Sarah Palin to the mix is a reincarnation of the “Bull Moose” Party.  John really had no association with George W. Bush over the last eight years, and only voted with Bush 90% of the time. He is against pork barrel spending to the tune of 18 billion dollars, but not against 300 billion of corporate income tax cuts, because our corporations are supplying jobs to people who live in other countries. The good news is we will now be able to pay back the Chinese the 1 trillion dollars we owe them with worthless American dollars. But we now know the difference between a strategy and a tactic. A strategy is something we should have had before we went into Iraq, but since we didn’t we now need something called a tactic, which will allow us to stay longer in a country that doesn’t want us there anymore. However since this country called Iraq has an 86 billion dollar surplus maybe they can loan us some money to pay for the mistakes our CEO friends made on Wall Street or at least to fund their severance packages. And John, thanks for making all of us realize once and for all why your nickname is “McNasty.” Obama wasn’t perfect last night, but he made it clear that if he is elected we will have a smart person in the White House so we won’t have to worry anymore about the difference between a strategy and a tactic.

By PatrickHenry, September 27 at 7:42 am #

“Did anyone notice how McCain parrotted the lie about “Israel being wiped of the map” in reference to Iran.”

And did you see how Obama jumped on that to correct him….? (laugh/joke)

That’s this “debate” in a nut shell.