Oh Mr. Frozen in place

If you truly believe that solutions have not been offered then you are plagued by a reading disability. Far more probable is that you are blind to that which you do not support.

Run to the administration again little nothing that you are.

http://primaryobamanow.com/

oddsox—the article you cited about third parties is incorrect about the Green Party, at least, which does run local and state-level candidates as well as candidates for the Senate and House of Representatives.  The Libertarian Party also runs non-presidential candidates in some areas.

ardee - I simply want to hear your solutions and offered some examples of the junk poured-out here on TD. If you didn’t like the tone or content….too bad.

You still evade the question. Come on genius (since I…and presumably, many others here are stupid), give it your best shot. Buy a ticket and play….just one good idea coming from you would be great….

I propose that Americans go on systematic, well-planned general strikes, boycott financial institutions and wage a voting war against targeted politicians and the lobbyists who have taken over our government….That’s a start…

Now, thrill us with your acumen…...

Actually, there was someone today who posted twelve specific actions to help make a third party candidacy viable.  I sped-read them and, when I tried to return to the post a bit later for a closer look, it was gone.  The writer was just offering suggestions and not bashing any other commentators, so I am really confused as to why the post is gone.  Did I dream it?

ardee - Kindly name some….thrill me with “the solution/s.”

(OH, let me guess…..armed revolution or OWS or “getting money out of politics” or “throw the bums out” or “eliminating the 2 party system or (OH YA) “electing Ron Paul??????????? etc..???? Or better yet, just keep repeating the word “liberal” over and over again (Cyr-style)...that’ll do it….

Your comment suggests to me that you don’t like the question. Good, I’ll patiently wait for an answer….

bnerin, Tuscany & other Rocky Anderson supporters:

Not too late to have an impact, but time’s-a-wastin’.

A while back, I posted the following re: Jill Stein. 
The same applies to Rocky Anderson.

“Dr. Jill Stein needs exposure.
A 50-state campaign & appearances on TV. 
Some TruthDiggers dislike the medium, but it is still the #1 news source for likely voters. 
If she were to get on the same debate floor with Obama and the Repub challenger, it would be a coup for her and the Green Party. 
Barring that, an appearance on Meet the Press or Face the Nation would be huge.
If that’s too much to ask, then try the cable talking heads like Maddow & O’Reilly, Matthews & Hannity. 
Hostile territory at Fox, but exposure is what she needs — worth the risk.
And for starters, maybe a shot on shows w/ the outliers like Chris Hayes or, better yet, Keith Olbermann.  They’ll give her time and support.
She has no chance to win, but can sow seeds now for 2016. 
Touring college campuses and posting on YouTube won’t be enough.”

Here’s a look at 3rd party candidates from across the pond.
http://www.economist.com/node/21541014

mrfreeze, December 22 at 8:15 am

If you truly believe that solutions have not been offered then you are plagued by a reading disability. Far more probable is that you are blind to that which you do not support.

Anarcissie:  I don’t buy the Jackson-Paul comparison because Paul still has a puncher’s chance (see below).

As for OWS, yes, as I suspected, you don’t associate them directly w/Democrats. 
There was a Zuccotti Park survey posted by another poster (Shenonymous?) on another thread and it backs your.
I believe this is it:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

—

ElkoJohn: Jessie V is still a stud but he’s mistaken if he thinks Paul would have a better chance as a Libertarian. 
The nomination would be his for the asking, but he’d have 0 chance to win in November. 
As it is now, Paul has a very tough climb, but if he were to get the Republican nomination, he’d be a very strong debater vs. Obama and might take the presidency by surprise.
2 other parts of Jessie V’s discussion were more interesting to me:
1) his idea to abolish political parties.
2) his statement that social security benefits are not entitlements. 

—

JohnCp:  As you demonstrate, there are still a lot of strong Hillary supporters out there, which goes the biggest point of my open-Salon piece:  be ye friend or foe, don’t take your eyes off Hillary.

Gender bias?  Bah Humbug—you’re fishing.
But let’s talk about the age issue.  That is real:
I didn’t write that 2016 would be too late for Hillary.  I wrote “Time isn’t on her side” and “2012 would be a better fit.”
Age puts pressure on us all: Hillary in 2016 and Ron Paul in 2012. 
It did on Reagan, too. 
You write: “Age didn’t enter the picture when Reagan was reelected.”  You must be too young to remember, but yes it did—big time. 
Watch Reagan’s first debate vs. Mondale.
Back to Hillary, note that she’s YOUNGER than both Romney and Gingrich. 
2012 will be their last shot, I believe.

Hillary is still quite a long shot for 2012. 
But she’s the best fit to fill John MacArthur’s and Bill Moyers’ role of “replacement” for Obama as a Democratic candidate.
And, she’s the lone exception to Phaff’s prediction that “any Democratic replacement candidate is likely to lose the presidency.”

Oddsox
You can imagine a 2012 Hillary presidency, but 2016 is too late for her?  Why?  Because Hillary’s a female?  I thought that what we’re looking for is fitness, alertness, intelligence, the ability to do sustain oneself facing the hardest work and challenges, etc.  Compare Hillary to Obama in these respects, or compare her to any president in recent memory.  Hillary wins these challenges by a mile.  How the hell does her age enter the picture?  Age didn’t enter the picture when Reagan was reelected.  But the important thing here, is that Hillary shows not the slightest evidence of Alzheimers.  Worse yet, you “don’t trust Hillary, and you don’t think she’ll make a good president.”  Amusing.  Wbere’s your political judgement?  I’ll tell you where it is.  You voted for Obama, that’s where your judgment is.  Ooops.  You’re as wrong as your vote for Obama could be.  Trust isn’t the issue here, though I’d trust Hillary a thousand times, before I trusted Obama.  The issue is skill, political know-how, instinct. And in these areas Hillary’s superiority over Obama is an embarrassment to the clueless mediocrity, currently and mistakenly occupying the White House.

Oddsox—the core of the Occupy Wall Street movement is / was a collection of anarchists and people we might call ‘revolutionary socialists’ or ‘communists’ although I don’t know if they call themselves that.  They are far from the Democratic Party.  However, once OWS got some notice, it attracted a lot of less radical types in various ways.

A person who does not support war, imperialism, the police state and the domination of the present ruling class will almost certainly not be elected president or to any other important office, so if Ron Paul is sincere he will be removed from the running by whatever means is necessary—probably, just lots of money for his Republican competitors.  Someone on Slate or Salon compared his candidacy to of Jesse Jackson, which was doomed from the get-go no matter how many primary victories he won.  But perhaps the effort was still worthwhile.

in ten words or, hopefully, fewer: nov 12 u’ll get new cook, using same
menu/recipe. i did it, i did it; and in nine words! tnx

Jesse V. has it right:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGiZYwPCyHU

I’m hoping for more, oddsox, in particular, for
breaking the unholy alliance and exposing our
government for what it truly is.  But I am an
anarchist, albeit with a small “a.”

balkas, of course the columnists are.  They’re
still the Establishment and they’re not going to
give up their role so long as they’re getting paid. 
Which is why most what you see here on the pages of
TD is death warmed over.  These people aren’t in
any revolutionary mode for all their pretense. 
They’re still operating within the defunct
paradigm.

i’ve noticed that even all columnists on td divide [and are very careful not to so explicitly] u.s [or in
actuality, its ideology, laws, etc.] into two: a democratic/Democratic and the other
undemocratic/Republican.
however, looking at any of u.s’ endeavors and particularly its laws and some 180 or so skirmishes/raids
against ‘aliens’ or even own indigenes, invasions/aggressions, and all laws,  we, until very recently, have
not heard even one congressperson or president say that even one of those actions had been immoral,
illegal, and crime against humanities.
i am not sure that even kucinich, paul call u.s aggression against totally innocent iraqis as a crime against
humanities; instead of as a failure, immorality, etc.

columnists and most posters, knowing that there are always differences in thinking between people,
exploit this fact to suggest that it is these squabblers who are at fault when s’mthing goes wrong in the
u.s or in iraq, afgh’n, and elsewhere. in short, stop arguing and unite under uncle sam and everything wld
be ok!

and, generally, culprits [a few individuals/corporations only] are always discovered; for financial crises, 9-
11, custer’s last stand, failed aggression—oops defense war—against ‘nam, iraq, any law deemed by
some to be nonconstitutional, etc.
while in fact, all those actions come from one kitchen/menu and never even two let alone more than two.
and the menu never ever even yaws a bit let alone changes!  only the cook! tnx

Foucauldian, there’s a lot of 1968 I don’t want repeated, I’m sure you feel the same. 
You and I will disagree often in the coming year, but it should be one hell of a ride, so buckle up, my blog-friend.

I’m not sold on OWS as being a lasting movement for change, but I sure hope it can help bring on the kinds of changes I believe we need:

—Breaking up the Big Banks using Anti-Trust action.
—Campaign finance reform that limits contributions to living, flesh-and-blood US citizens.
—Locking in a simplified tax code, especially the elimination of Payroll Taxes in favor of a consumption tax model.

Of course, that’s just what I want.
Others use OWS as a vehicle to advance their own causes.

So far it looks like the movement is in winter mode (a smart tactic), and has succeeded only in increasing awareness of our growing wealth and income disparity (a good thing if not co-opted to stoke class warfare). 

So I entertain myself with viewing OWS as a tactical exercise while rooting for it to survive in hopes that MY agenda items might one day be addressed.

What a great idea ! A new third, fourth, or fifth party candidate to run ! All the
more and merrier ....FOR ME TO POOP ON !!

oddsox,

I should hope OWS will lead to something beyond the
Left.

And yes, 2012 should prove to be interesting, more
like the Chicago National Convention, except
intensified.

Anarcissie, you write:
“I suppose (Paul) might run as the candidate of the Libertarian Party.”

Been there, done that, 1988.
And he knows that he can only be a spoiler in a 3-way race, probably handing re-election to Obama. 
Paul has a better chance as a Repub, though it will be tougher for him to win the nomination than to beat Obama 1-on-1 next November. 

Paul may be at his high-water mark right now. 
But stranger things have happened than for him to win the Repub nomination.

and, you write:
“The Democratic Party ... has succeeded in neutralizing its leftists.  That’s one difference between 1967 and 2011.”

My guess is you see the makeup of the Occupy Movement as something beyond leftist, am I right?
You are correct to compare 1967 with 2011.
But the real action will be in looking at 1968 vs. 2012.

So Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, Anarcissie.
Here we go-o-o-o-o-o-o….

ardee - Ya, and where’s the great “libertarian”/“independent”/“whatever” revolution in our government?

I sit here day after day waiting for you and the rest of the blog-geniuses here on TD to come up with some action-solutions….but all I read is diatribes against the political parties, diatribes against the President, etc. ad nauseum.

At least I have the honesty to admit: I don’t believe in the salvation of our “system” and I’ll hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two (admittedly) lousy evils.

But, I’m still waiting…....what do all you geniuses propose?

To include the “intellectual elite,” which is as
anemic and ineffective as ever.  Some would like to
believe that OWS may yet radicalize these clowns, to
which I say, fat chance in hell.

It is ironic that the one candidate who unequivocally opposes war and imperialism abroad and the police state with bailouts for the rich at home is a Republican. 

No doubt something will happen to Ron Paul before he gets nominated, much less elected.  If he survives I suppose he might run as the candidate of the Libertarian Party.  Given that the slaughter of the innocent is a fairly serious instance of evil, one might reasonably decide that he, and not Mr. O or whatever clown monster the Republicans will wind up nominating, is the least evil.

The proggies, meanwhile, after having snivelled about Obama for most of his term, have done nothing and apparently will do nothing to oppose him.  The Democratic Party may not be able to win elections or govern, but it has succeeded in neutralizing its leftists.  That’s one difference between 1967 and 2011.

mrfreeze, December 21 at 11:05 pm Link to this comment

ardee - Indeed, “The nation cannot bear two parties representing plutocratic power.”

But I’ll say it again: The Republicans are the truly ugly f**king worst of the two main parties…....

Horseshite, I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You are too easily loyal to a party that gives you absolutely nothing in return. Your own choice.

As for all the other “alternatives” (ya right, libertarians…..give me a break), there are none and, frankly, I don’t expect to see any in my lifetime.

Thats OK, just sit on your couch, and others will do the work for you.

I respectfully decline to comment on this because I’m afraid I have nothing constructive to add.
I just get the sense that everyone’s tired and beaten lately—and for good reason. The powers that be just go about their merry way, status quo, running over the little hiccups in the road.
So predictable, and kind of a helpless feeling.

ardee - Indeed, “The nation cannot bear two parties representing plutocratic power.”

But I’ll say it again: The Republicans are the truly ugly f**king worst of the two main parties…....

As for all the other “alternatives” (ya right, libertarians…..give me a break), there are none and, frankly, I don’t expect to see any in my lifetime.

Michael,

I would assume the advertisements pay a lot of the bills at Truth Dig, along with
the individual donations whose requests I’ve been seeing sometimes lately when I
log in.

I agree there should be transparency to donorship, whether it’s nonprofit or for
profit.

Do the IM or email functions work here?

“Do you wonder who pays the bills around here? I do.”
—MC-RN

You wonder or you pay?

Whose bills?
YOUR bills!

Oceania

Thank you for verifying my point. Both on the snake oil peddling and the censorship at Common Dreams. I was banned there for asking another person who was causing what we termed “their invisible donor problem.”

I mentioned the name George Soros, Goldmann Sachs and myself, the person I was discussing with and the entire conversation were disappeared. After mentioning that the Koch Brothers were running the right.

I still ask the question. Do you wonder who pays the bills around here? I do.

@ Michael Calvan 8:45 AM

We’re the only “developed” country with a 2 party system.  It’s an obsolete and
antiquated system with little recourse so far.  Though it’s more accurate to say
it’s a unitary or single system of two parties devoted to interests not our own,
but whose brunt we most entirely bear like serfs to the plutocracy. 

The snake oil being sold is the denial of the obvious; that both parties are in service of self-serving interests while ours are largely inconsequential, including our most rudimentary needs of shelter and the medical. With the passage of the
NDAA, we’re stripped of even Habeaus Corpus which was done for undisclosed
reasons that we can only speculate about.

I doubt if there’s a censorship problem at Truth Dig that comes close to the
magnitude of Common Dream’s.  Theirs is a highly arbitrary and extreme
method. Recently an entire article was removed because of a discussion on
censorship on the site that ensued beneath it. Writing about the censorship
banishes commenters, along with criticism of their editorializing and choice of
articles.  However, the ad hominem remains. 

I don’t expect them to pull any articles whatsoever on Bill Moyers and his call
for an alternative Democratic candidate, even though he’s endorsed their
website.  It would be too much of a contrast to the purges of ‘08 when
criticisms of Obama and the commenters were purged from their site. 

The best response to censorship is to communicate it.  Thanks for bringing it up!

As for the president himself, the objection to him is that his Democratic Party has become a representative of the same interests as the Republican Party. The nation cannot bear two parties representing plutocratic power.

This seems the answer to mrfreeze, December 21 at 11:11 am.

Must be me getting old, but there are a few things in Phaff’s piece that don’t jibe with the way I remember them:

“On March 31, President Johnson, who had always hated the war, announced his own withdrawal.”
—WF

Please tell me I’m misreading sarcasm here.  Although our involvement in Indochina can be traced all the way back to FDR, it was LBJ who enthusiasticly jumped into Vietnam with both feet.

“Humphrey’s misfortune was that he felt compelled to defend the war policies of Johnson and Kennedy.”
—WF

As sitting Vice-President, HHH was stuck.  He couldn’t publicly oppose the policies of his direct boss.  The best he could do was give hints like:
“Hubert Humphrey as vice president is a member of a team. Hubert Humphrey as president is captain of a team. There’s a lot of difference.”
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1917&dat=19680924&id=bmktAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HooFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3244,4411751

With George Wallace cutting into Nixon’s strength in the South, Humphrey came within 1% of winning a popular vote plurality.  But his support was concentrated in the North and Northeast, so he lost the electoral vote solidly.  Looking back, Humphrey might have made a fine President.

—

A while back, I wrote on a scenario that could place Hillary in the White House in 2013.
Still very possible this way:
http://open.salon.com/blog/oddsox/2011/10/23/hillary_in_2012_call_me_nuts_but

Memo to America: Stop waiting for Democrats and Republicans to save you. It’s bad
for your health and your future. Can’t you tell? You have another choice - use it!
“WAKE UP PEOPLE!” 
Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( http://www.revolution2.osixs.org )

Enough talk, it’s time to get organized. Join the Revolution

W. Paff:

Thanks for clarifying your article on the role of Germany. My first reaction when
I read it was that what you were trying to convey was not altogether very clear
to me. Perhaps my own limitations about the subject were the reason for it. I
should have simply said that in my comment.

You write that Germany’s stance “prevents the ECB from assuming the role of lender of last resort” and that “quantitative easing” would go a long way toward solving the present impasse.  Regarding the first statement, aren’t the US and England suffering from the financial business relying on taxpayers to solve their problems? More than “last resort,” it seems like a reliance on bailouts to erase their fraudulent practices.

With respect to Germany’s help to solve the present impasse, the question may
be, how will the easing of money help countries solve economic problems
beyond “the present time?”  It has happened before that the beneficiaries of easy
money are mostly corrupt politicians and big interests.  Argentina is an
example of a country that was deluded by easy money simply because there
was an abundance of consumer items many could buy. However, the economy
which supported all that was entirely fictitious and was followed by a major
collapse.  By all means, I think poorer countries should be helped by richer ones
but I’m not sure what the successful formula is to accomplish that.

On your commentary about what history tells us about considering a
Democratic challenge to Obama: We’re practically in 2012. Almost half a
century has passed since the piece of history you recall. Perhaps you would
agree that times have changed for the worse in American politics or, at least,
that a much-needed new vision for the country has not surfaced. The
Democrats have not brought any overall benefits to the government -only,
sometimes, imaginary benefits. They have contributed to maintaining a corrupt
election and campaign system, foreign wars, bad diplomacy, failed
environmental protection, the demise of the manufacturing industry and sources of work.  They are masters at producing make-believe goodness for liberal voters. I’m afraid that far too many agree with your analysis but others don’t believe in a “Democratic challenge” to anything, except for their challenge to Republicans over power and control issues. The Democratic party is simply not in the challenging business for the benefit of the country.

At the risk of sounding as if I’m “pleased” with President Obama (which I am not), I’m going out on a limb to say this:

1) I will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever vote for a third party, libertarian or whatever “alternative” candidate for president. Because,
2) Doing so is a vote for the republican and I will never, ever, ever, ever, EVER, vote for a republican.

Having said this, I know most of you here on TD have (as one commentator says below) had your “cherry poped” by Obama…...Well that’s a bunch of baloney. Most of you are savvy enough to know how that the presidency hasn’t been “citizen-focused” for decades. You also know that the SCOTUS no longer serves its purpose, and you know that Congress is nothing but a rich boy’s/girl’s club. You also know there is not nor will there be a viable 3rd party or Democratic party challenger to Obama in the upcoming election.

What is the ultimate solution? I’m afraid there is no “solution” to our political/governmental problems today. I thing is F**KING certain: screw the republicans…............no matter how much whining you all do, Obama is a better choice….

A foretaste of things to come, Balkas, cops getting
ready for war:

http://news.yahoo.com/cops-ready-war-094500010.html

hey folks, let’s not be total dummies: u.s or its sacred and infallible ideology always had the right to imprison,
torture, accuse/sentence, exploit people in america and ‘alien’ people/peoples anywhere on the planet.
until now, the ideology saw no need to enshrine that in a law.
and why? because my dears, the ideology had been considered infallible by at least 99% of americans. so, why
bother with stupid laws?

but, as of very recent, there may not be 99% support for u.s ideology; numbers, seems, are going down. and
that is a bother. so, what to do? well, empower one percent servant class’ [with good pay, health care education,
etc.] to oppress, imprison, torture, detain at will anyone who even whispers anything against the ideology.
ok, one still might be able to whisper after this new legislation, but wld have to look around four ways before
doing that or crossing a street.
will this post or i disappear, i wonder? but being 90 y o, who cares!
tnx

Skip the 3rd Parties…. Skip a Democratic Party challenger and go straight to someone who will fix these problems!! Nobody!!

http://nobodyforpresident.org

michael cavlan,
i have been banned from many sites also; however, not a single post of mine had been, as far as i know,
deleted or banned from appearing on td.
and in spite of the fact that what i put down on paper cannot be more further Leftish. eg, [and i solemnly
declare]: i wld sooner vote for a communist party than any other if was a u.s citizen.

a conclusion—in this case that the role of a prez is largely or even solely of ceremonial nature—cannot be
evaluated as a lie.
all one can do, is to counterpose it with another conclusion and which u actually did—thank my goddevil: that
a president is so and so much powerful by merely signing a piece of paper.

however, my conclusion that anywhere from 80 to 90 or 99% of americans wld still have close to zero power [i
am talking about military, educational, informative, financial powers also] regardless which person get’s a
presidency, u simply ignored.
in add’n u [un]wittingly misquoted my label “[{un}knowingly”; i.e, knowingly or unknowingly selling people
snake oil or unrealistic expectations, hopes, etc.  tnx

Personally, I’d like to see Obama challenged in a big
way come 2012, regardless of the outcome.  But I
don’t place much hope in the third party unless it be
a true People’s Party.

I doubt that you’re going to be banned from this
site, Michael.  The odds that you might mysteriously
disappear, however, are better.

Isn’t it funny that Rocky Anderson and Jill Stein are (unknowingly) selling snake oil to the American public. Because of the supposed weakness of the Executive Office. Which is a flat out lie and in fact given the passage of the Defense Authorization Act, the President now has the power to intern Americans, on US Soil.

Yet it is not said that it is Obama and the Clown Car Circus of the Republican candidates who are selling the real snake oil.

People are being sold a bill of goods here in this country. I Include here on Truthdig. I will maintain that until one of two things happen. I suddenly disappear and am banned just like I was at Op Ed News, Common Dreams, Truthout etc etc. Or until Truthdig and other “progressive” blogs start to allow articles that report on the Rocky Anderson and/or Jill Stein campaign.

Until that happens, I will ask. Do you wonder who pays the bills around here?

I do.

Oh and firegodlake is a fantastic progressive site. Where real dissent and real progressive journalism is allowed.

cyr, sir,
i think that rocky anderson and jill stein are selling [{un}knowingly] snake
oil to americans.
it is obvious to me [and i note it had been obvious to others, as well] that
presidency is mostly a ceremonial function.
whoever gets elected, 80 to 99% of americans wld sill enjoy about zero
powers.

it’s ideology, stupid. it’s never solely a president or even congress; it is always in greatest
measure the ideology of which ueber-nationalism or imperialism is always a part; and which
causes bailouts, wars, tortures, imprisonment of dissidents, exploitation. detention of people
w.o. charge.
and we need god and devil to get back to sanity in such situations and never just god.
in case of u.s ideology, it’ll never allow a vote whether to go to war or not or end a war or not;
or whether to bail financial institution, use of wnd, build and maintain military bases, obtain
healthcare for all, and such matters of great importance or not.
what u have then in u.s is a totalitarian rule, much stricter/stronger and meaner than any that i
know of.

i wld even dare to ‘predict’ that w.o use of a goddevil ideology against u.s supremacist
ideology, we cannot change it.
and that case we wld need strong support from the 99% or 80% an dmay require northern
ireland solution! tnx bozhidar balkas vancouver

QUOTE, William Pfaff:

“As for the president himself, the objection to him is that his Democratic Party has become a representative of the same interests as the Republican Party. The nation cannot bear two parties representing plutocratic power.”
_________________

Liberal support is dependent upon BIG lies like that… the BIG lies that have made America’s fascism so sustainable.

It’s been the teamwork of the corporate owned Republican and Democrat factions of the corporate party that has preserved and protected America’s plutocracy, over many generations from the Civil War to present day.

If liberals were for what they say they are for and against what they say they oppose, then they wouldn’t be corporate party Democrats… and they wouldn’t be searching for “antiwar” candidates within the corporate war party.

If Democrats were the Solution, we wouldn’t have the Problems.

Jill Stein for President:

http://www.jillstein.org

Voter Consent Wastes Dissent:

http://chenangogreens.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=498&Itemid=1

u.s [never mind morality of presidents or even power of presidents]
ended aggression against vietnamese because both china and ussr were
involved in defense of vietnam.
the confrontation may have ended or been decided by use of nuclear
weapons.
as for morality of the presidents, theirs is the kind of as that of
napoleon, genghis khan, suleyman the magnificient, mussolini, atilla,
shah, any king or emperor.
goddevil saves us from all u.s presidents, kings, monarchs, priests and
their kind of morality. tnx

To those who state that they are done with Obama and the Dems, I beg you. Do not vote Republican to spite them. Do not simply stay home. That is precisely what the corporate powers want.

You have two candidates for president to vote for. Who may even (God willing) get on the same ticket. Vote for them. You really have nothing to lose at this stage. Not to mention everything to gain.

Rocky Anderson and/or Jill Stein

As for the nonsense of this story. The very fact that there is no real, honest opposition to Obama is the very worst condemnation of the Democratic Party we could ever imagine.

ROCKY ANDERSON FOR PRESIDENT

So- when does Truthdig start doing articles about Rocky Anderson? Or do you wonder who pays the bills around here?

I do.

Yeah, I can see the headlines..“Obama has—(fill in the blank..heart murmur or
whatever)..and there is serious talk of a Hillary Clinton presidential run”. Perhaps
unseen powerful people decide who will be president. How about we vote this time
just to save a life of a kid? If anyone..but..Ron Paul gets elected, we will read a
headline that goes..“3 children blown to smithereens by a drone” or something like
that.
Americans will have a real evolution when both sides get that Obama and Romney
or Gingrich are corporate presidents.

THIRD-PARTIES IN AMERICA

History Tells Us Not to Dismiss a Democratic Challenge to Obama

History also tells us the opposite, Mr. Pfaff.

Just ask Ralph Nader what the chances are of a third-party candidate to occupy the White House.

As much as I am partisan of third-party candidates, the cards are stacked against them. With redistricting (gerrymandering) and first-past-the-post (winner-take-all) vote counting, third-parties haven’t a snowball’s chance in hell of getting themselves into Congress let alone the Oval Office.

Also consider third-parties in the UK which has similar voting rules as the US. The intent is to assure viable adversarial parties, which means political stability. Except when one of those parties goes off the deep-end, as did the Replicants under Bush.

Then it means disaster.

MY POINT: Utter Fools

So, come next November, if it is not Obama then it will almost surely be a Replicant. Pray tell, how does that outcome advance the cause of American progressives?

I’m all eyes, Mr. Pfaff, should have the right answer to that question ...

President Barack Obama, through expedient political compromises, has lost the moral authority that an American president must command

More nonsense.

Ours is a tripartite system of governance and the only fact that has changed radically recently is that we no longer have a sense of “Loyal Opposition”. The T-party (T for Troglodyte) dorks are being manipulated by the Replicants to stonewall all legislation that Obama presents.

And because they now control the HofR (as well as having the “super-majority” one-vote necessary to kill any legislation by filibustering in the Senate), they have made this administration’s tenure a nightmare. 

I dare anyone to look into the Congressional history to find a period of time when the Dems treated the Republicans as ignominiously as the latter are treating the former today.

MY POINT

We call such overbearing politicking “hard-ball” nowadays. And the consequence of hard-ball politics in a two party system is gridlock in LaLaLand-on-the-Potomac.

We pay these dorks to “do nothing but vote No”? Not unless we are utter fools.

Gridlock is NOT what functional democracy is about. Compromising (and getting on with it) IS what functional democracy is about.

POST SCRIPTUM

Of course, from the cushy seat of a journalist, compromising seems unethical. Which is why in addition to a better class of politicians, we also need a more comprehending generation of journalists.

But journalists are not elected to officiate over public opinion. They are put in place by managements.

An astute political analysis but so weak on the
economic take on the EU and the Eurozone.  The
author recommends the same course of action as that
played by our Federal Reserve Bank in trying to
salvage the US economy through quantitative easing,
a policy whose benefits are yet to be discerned.

It’s about time for the beleaguered nation-states
which comprise the EU to bite the bullet and break
the unholy alliance.  If EU is to survive by being
beholden to global financiers, it had better
dissolve.

Meh, nobody is going to challenge Obama because he’s the perfect corporate tool. By November will i.am or whatever will have a new song out and liberal clowns will be babbling about “choosing the lesser of two evils.”

The ‘voting’ may be over by March, but that doesn’t mean it is an election. Who’s going to the polls? The Radical Right that claims the Republican Party, a hand-full of ‘moderate’ Republicans now claiming to be ‘Democrats’ and the few ‘Independents’ who are so lazy they decide to vote only if the weather is nice and it doesn’t interfere with their TV watching. Their candidate is chosen on the way to the polls, depending on the day’s headlines, or an ad on the side of a bus.

Such is political action in the early 21st Century. As for the Left being incompetent when it comes to National Politics, they make the Far-Right look like escapees from an old fashioned insane asylum, frontal lobotomies and all!

2012 has all the intensity of a poorly written sit-com: The Cosby Family vs the Zombies and SWAT Teams. Guess who loses? The poor suckers who try to pretend this is inevitable, so why worry?

As for me, I worry a lot about what human meddling and greed are doing to the only planet we have. Rather than an alternative Candidate chosen from our lack-luster Pols, I will support real activism and an end to this farce.

Of course, I am fortunate to be among the Seniors who wont be around long enough to pay the piper, even if I live to 100 plus. Pity the poor under fifty group. No matter how they try, they are probably facing an ever bleaker future, unless they are members of the 1% who have all the money and power. Of course even the 1% has to hope the French Revolution isn’t rewritten with modern language weaponry. Just visualize the next Revolution: Instead of a guillotine, they can expect a nano-drone to fly up their nose on the way to the Country Club.

Once again, Mr. Plaff you have taken the easy way out….crediting Mr. Obama, with
making expedient political compromises, that meant sacrifising his right to a second
term…..

Your judgement of Mr. Obama and his presidency, is far too kind, much too forgiving…

Mr. Obama’s continued pursuit of his predesessors War policies, his ordering the
assassiantions of American’s without trial on presidential order alone, his lies regarding
NDAA, first saying he wouldn’t sign it…then signing after feigning duress, in essense that
he must sign it to protect unemployed Americans.. are all pretense…

His failure to prosecute Wall Street, to implement finanical reform, the big payday given
to the insurance industry, this and other countless decisions made by him, were part of a
coordinated agenda, that he smoothly excused himself for…

Obama knows full well what he is doing…

Yes I agree, he has played the good cop bad cop game with the Republican party well.
Well enought to fool for a time, most of those who voted for him… But not anymore…

The Republican party doesn’t need to elect one of those idiots, to further their policies,
because they already have one in the White House.

What more could they ask for?

Obama should resign, but he won’t.  Because,  with him running for president, it’s a Win,
Win, for the plutocracy…They can’t lose because who ever is elected, there will be no
change, and no one to jeopardize, the construction of a totalitarian state, one in which
the people have no rights, no freedoms, and no way of taking back control from the one
percenters, who wish to remain in power forever….

I am sure as the election approaches, Mr. Obama will ofer more excuses, and even
admit to some mistakes, these will be calcualted to appeal to the gullible, and will be
supported by the Democratic mainliners…He will promise to do things differently in his
second term, a promise that is about as real as O.J. Smpsons promise to spend the rest
of his life, and never resting, until he found out who the real killer of Nicole Simpson
was…

Voting starts in just two or three weeks.  By early
March, it will all be over.  The big states all come
relatively early.  There’s no big California primary
at the end of the process anymore like there used to
be.

Grassroots campaigns take time to organize.  They
need time to grow like a snowball rolling down the
hill.  On the other hand, Obama has yet another giant
war chest of wall street dollars, and undoubtably can
call in millions and millions more if he feels
threatened in a primary.

Not that I don’t want this to happen.  But the time
to make it happen was a year ago.  The left needs to
learn that lesson someday, that a grassroots
challenge to military, wall street and media power
needs time to build and grow.  Maybe someday the
American left will grow out of their infantile ideas
of politics and start taking a realistic view at the
work they really need to do to change things.  The
left needed to mount a major effort back in Dec of
2010 ... not now.

Thanks to the ineptitude of the American left,
there’s one and only one game in town during the
primary season for those who oppose war and empire
and rule by wall street.  That’s Ron Paul in the
Republican race.  The left needs to show it can grow
up and play the hand that its dealt itself, which
right now means moving over to the Republican side
and supporting Ron Paul, and forget such far-too-
late-fantasies about mythical campaigns that don’t
exist.