In 2008 Ron Paul hosted a meeting of third party candidates. Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney were there along with someone from the constitution party who’s name escapes me now, Bob Barr didn’t show but Ralph Nader spoke for him.
Ron Paul hit the nail on the head when he said “There is no difference between the two partys, both are beholding to the same “corporate overlords”.
The whole show can be found on C-Span archives.

A tossed-off comment in this article that chilled me was the description of the UnitedHealth group as a rapacious insurance company. That’s AARP’s Medicare supplement! HELP!!

If the corporate party’s deeply depraved Democrats didn’t have their bat shit ranting retrograde Republican partners they wouldn’t be electable, nor able to flock (D) sheeple to the polls to provide popular vote mandates for more war, no healthcare, and no care for the welfare (or even survival) of future generations.

Our Liberal Problem is that liberals can’t conceive of elections serving any purpose other than choosing solely between the corporate party’s Republican or the corporate party’s Democrat. Same shit, different wrappers… different collaborators expecting benefits from their collaboration with the corporate-state.

If liberals had any democratic principles — which they evidently don’t —  they would vote for the good they keep saying they are for, instead of always fear filled voting for Democrats because they are too comfortable with (D) fascists they prefer, the fascists they hope will only harm others and not them.

The dementia of Democrat voters is that they believe that good can only come from their (D)evils. That’s why they are always confused when they get the evil shit they voted for.

Elections in which only corporate party candidates are “electable” are elections that serve absolutely no good purpose… only an evil purpose.

No democrat would be, nor can they be a Democrat.

It’s the function of Democrats to ensure that democracy won’t exist.

http://www.chenangogreens.org

David,
You make excellent points about the sorry state of politics, but don’t tell be a Rick Perry is the same as a Barack Obama. Obama is deeply flawed but I don’t think their differences are play-acted to feign polar choices between the ruthless Republicans and the cowardly Democrats. If voters continue to think they can vote in right-wing Republicans every time they’re angry about unemployment or anything else, we (at least 99% of us) are sunk. At the same time if voters think they don’t have to become activists to keep our democracy going, we are likewise sunk. The latter attitude will just take a little longer.

The Tim Russert -v- Ron Paul debate was on meet the press in December of 07 not 2008. My mistake.

Ron Paul quoted Sinclair Lewis saying “when fascism comes to America it will come waving a flag and carrying a cross”. In reference to Huckaby standing in front of a cross shaped bookshelf

David Sirota,          9/26/2011
    Actually,if it ever rears it head you will find
a three headed political monster.
Independents,Democrats,and Republicans -(Indemoreps).
All parties must remain loyal to the one government,
not to the people.
    The cornerstones of the 21st century are
deception and betrayal.It is all around us,in many
forms of what is said,written,and done.As well as,
what is not said,written,or done.
    Know your friendenmies
    Thank you for this opportunity to comment -
    James M. de Laurier

I don’t think it can be shown that voting does much harm, even in the case of voting for a candidate who might win.  Some suppose that once people vote for a candidate, they become attached to and support him and his deeds.  But the past can be changed.  For example, after Nixon’s presidency turned sour, polls revealed that an overwhelming majority of people had voted for the other guy.

Anarcissie,

Thank you for the two links you have graciously taken your time to provide for the benefit of those readers who are interested. Much appreciated by,at least,me. I read both links as carefully as I could.

My intent in my earlier post was not really to concentrate the blame only on Reagan for the seemingly endless war in Afghanistan. Not at all,since it could have been any other President in place of Reagan,at that point in time,as long as he or she executed the “Hard Power”,the U.S. has,as Reagan had obviously done.

The operative words in my earlier post were:

“Soft Power” and “Hard Power”.

It seems to me that Carter used “Soft Power” in conducting foreign policies,in most of his Presidency except when he listened to former President George H. Walker Bush,Sr,to free the American hostages held in Iran by force and the force failed. At the very end of his Presidency,he was the one who had succeeded in freeing the hostages,through peaceful dialogue with the Iranian government. That is an integral part of the realm of “Soft Power”. I wish I could say the same about Reagan who used “Hard Power” as a foreign policy tool,through out his eight years in the White House.

In short,America will end,somehow and somewhere,in a war,as long as its Congress allows its Presidents to use the enormous “Hard Power” America has,whether the cause is worth it or not;and more importantly when “Soft Power” could do the job.

telling, though not fully revealing, photo… hidden: the strings

Some Short Notes about the Picture:

* The Two Bushes: Couple of war criminals who should have been rotting in prison.

* Bill Clinton: His “Cigar” had created serious problem for him and the nation.

* Barack Obama: A great orator and nothing else.

* Jimmy Carter: A truly decent human being who sought peace for the people of the world.

Oddsox,

I do vote, always have, and will continue to.

Cyr,

One of your more memorable efforts, I think. The clarity of your thoughts on the upcoming election is much appreciated; in quite economical prose, you’ve managed to say very much indeed. Selah.

@David Cyr:
“In past elections approximately half the eligible voters have refused to vote, but the choice to abstain registers as being an acceptance of what is — an acquiescence…”

“It’s time for(the American People)to begin to put the ballot to good use, before the bullet becomes the only means available.”

There is much upon which we do not agree, Sir.

But your two statements above are rock solid and spot on. 

Thank you.

@Project Mayhem

Do you vote? 
If you do, my bad, I indeed misunderstood you.
My humble and complete apologies.

To those who don’t vote, my comment stands.

We’re close, but we have not yet reached “a time when voting must be discarded as a means to an end.”

The complete transparency that the deep depravity of Obamanation has provided has also provided a narrow window of opportunity for natural persons to begin to use elections for the good purposes they always could have, but haven’t. It’s time to use elections to register a protest that must be taken seriously — a firm majority forcefully voting for **NONE** of the corporate party’s candidates.

In the Corporate States of America elections have served as a barometer for the corporate-state to frequently measure the real level of societal dissidence. No other polls matter. Street demonstrations and civil disobedience haven’t had any effect, because near all the demonstrators have later dutifully supported the corporate party’s interchangeable (R) & (D) candidates. Elections have been serving to provide proofs positive that a supermajority of participants (voters voting) affirmatively wish to continue to have done unto others and to themselves whatever corporate persons decide.

In past elections approximately half the eligible voters have refused to vote, but the choice to abstain registers as being an acceptance of what is — an acquiescence to corporate persons deciding what will be done; how it will be done; and to whom it will be done. Not voting is a “Yes Massa!” vote.

We will have definitely reached the time to discard any and all consideration for the possibility of using elections for some good purpose if the electorate — in this time of Obamanable transparency — continues to behave normatively uneducable, as it has been corporate obediently “educated” to be. If voters continue to be the mindless mass they have been, then the corporate party could switch the labels on the ballots for its two 2012 candidates and we’d see Tea Party voters voting for Obama and “progressive” voters voting for bat shit… because there’s effectively no discernible material or substantive difference between them.

2012 provides what could be a truly historic opportunity to begin to use elections for a good purpose — mass protest — a majority voting for any whomevers the individual voters actually trust (likely to be mostly write-ins) indicating the various alternatives that individual voters believe the solution could and should be, but not voting for any of the corporate party’s Republicans or Democrats.

It’s time to use elections for something other than a struggle between corporate collaborating liberals and conservatives fighting over which should get more rewarded for perpetuating perpetual war than the other; which should get more rewarded for increased ruthlessness in economic exploitation than the other; and whether catastrophically changing weather patterns should be (R) denied or simply (D) ignored.

The American people discarded elections as a means to any good end generations ago. It’s a time ripe now for them to seize an exceptional opportunity to use elections for revolutionary purpose. It’s time for them to begin to put the ballot to good use, before the bullet becomes the only means available.

http://www.chenangogreens.org

This one picture is a gold-mine for students of NLP.

Via his stance, even William J. Clinton depicts himself as a separate individual from the other four.  The “Democrat,” standing between two - - - - whatevers, appears to have gotten his rocks off. 

Mister al Barack bin Obama, appears to be exceedingly pleased. One wonders if, in such a moment of intense pleasure, Mr. Jr. Bush and Mr. al Barack bin Obama are hiding with their hands, an event that just occurred in their crotch areas?  No, their crotch-hairs were not burned off by a phosphorus deposit, (plastic explosives?  CIA fairy tale) similar to the False-Flag, “Christmas Bomber,” one year and nine months ago.  Although, these five do depict a chain reaction. However, rather than fun and games for the MOSSAD/CIA, they depict a serious calamity that continues to occur to America and the Western World.  (For sure, the sharply-dressed agent in Amsterdam did not buy his suit at the Hecht Company in D.C.)

What happened to the intelligent leadership that permitted the Republican Party to be “seduced” by the GHWBushSr entourage ?

Hey Marian
Ron Paul has more conscience in his little finger than the rest of our “choices” have between all of them.

If you think Obama gives a crap about anyone other than wall street and his rich supporters you ain’t been paying attention.

You need to watch some of Ron Pauls speeches for yourself rather than getting facts from others.
At least watch the clip that Amy Goodman showed to Noam Chomsky on Democracy Now, a few days ago.

I got Tim Russert attacking Ron Paul on tape.
It was from Dec.08 “meet the press”. Russert asks every question you can think of.

Nothing is mentioned about the gold standard in any of Ron Pauls speeches I have seen.

Ron Paul and the “tea party nuts” are as different as night and day.
Check him out for yourself.

I respect people like Kucinich, Ralph Nader, Bernie Sanders and I miss Paul Wellstone, Howard Zinn and Bill Moyers.

The few things Ron Paul likes that I dislike are over ridden by his straight talk about our foreign policy, corrupt corporations and Israel.

oddsox, September 25 at 4:52 pm:

‘... What would a Democratic “Tea Party” movement look like?
How might it start?’

It depends what you mean by ‘Democratic’.  I assume you’re referring to the Democratic Party.  The relation of the Tea Party movement to the Republicans is that of a group of people identifying themselves as rightists of one sort or another who feel excluded by the Republican Party establishment.  Prior to the rise of the Tea Party, I think most of them were under the impression that they had associated themselves with the Republican Party.

The situation with the Democratic Party is different.  The Democratic Party is a conservative party in the original sense of the word.  It drove the leftists out of its power structure a long time ago, beginning at least in the 1940s.  There was the brief inrush of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party in 1964; the leftists that came in at that time were flushed after the defeat of McGovern in 1972.  Hence, there are no serious leftists in the Democratic Party structure and very few who are not deluded in the ranks.  Such leftists as exist are almost entirely outside the party.  Nevertheless, their organizations have been attacked and subverted by Democrats (for example, UFPJ).  The Democratic Party has waged a long, ruthless and sustained war against the Left.

The present ‘Wall Street Occupation’ could be seen as a sort of leftist Tea Party-like uprising, but it has no connection I know of with the Democratic Party.  If it had, the Democratic Party operatives would have killed it before it got started.

More on the Wall Street Occupation:
http://www.livestream.com/globalrevolution
http://nycga.cc/
http://coupmedia.org/occupywallstreet/occupy-wall-street-official-demands-2009/pdf

Oddsox,

Your response misses my point entirely, although I can’t say this surprises me. My previous post was meant to represent a particular point of view that seems prevalent here at Truthdig, a PoV which has been supported with clear and thoughtful arguments. You, on the other hand, seem caught in a kind of paradigmatic rigidity that renders you incapable of thinking outside certain well-defined, orthodox codas. I’ll offer your contributions on the ‘University of Hypocrisy’ thread as Exhibit A. You weren’t who I was speaking to, although I do appreciate the response. My intended audience, rather, was Cyr and those others who share what seems to me a revolutionary consciousness. My point was that there comes a time when voting must be discarded as a means to an end. The writing of Cyr, and others, suggests that if this time is nigh, if, indeed, it is not already upon us. So, what next?

Cyr is right! ”...loyal liberal Democrat voters…” identified as the first to
leave the room when a fight breaks out - chicken shits, lacking
the guts to stand against bullies - here’s the kind of thing they enable:

LIBYA AND THE BIG LIE:
USING HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS TO LAUNCH WARS
25.09.2011

Saturday, September 24, 2011
By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

The war against Libya is built on fraud. The United Nations Security Council
passed two resolutions against Libya on the basis of unproven claims,
specifically that Colonel Muammar Qaddafi was killing his own people in
Benghazi. The claim in its exact form was that Qaddafi had ordered Libyan
forces to kill 6,000 people in Benghazi. These claims were widely disseminated,
but always vaguely explained. It was on the basis of this claim that Libya was
referred to the U.N. Security Council at U.N Headquarters in New York City and
kicked out of the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva.

One of the main sources for the claim that Qaddafi was killing his own people
is the Libyan League for Human Rights (LLHR). The LLHR was actually pivotal to
getting the U.N. involved through its specific claims in Geneva. On February 21,
2011 the LLHR got the 70 other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to
sent letters to the President Obama, E.U. High Representative Catherine
Ashton., and the U.N. Secretary-General Ban-ki Moon demanding international
action against Libya invoking the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine. Only 25
members of this coalition actually assert that they are human rights groups.

Read more
http://dondebar.blogspot.com/

@Cliff Carson:

On one thing, I’m with Sirota, yourself and so many others on this thread. 
There is a hunger for a third way: something different, a new alternative, something more. 
The hunger is growing—it’s not just here among TruthDig posters.

You claim there are or have been 135 such “third” parties.  I don’t doubt it. 
To paraphrase Edison, we now know 135 ways NOT to invent the light bulb.
I sense your frustration, but bringing 135 broken bulbs together won’t give off the light we need.

Maybe (probably) we’re asking the wrong questions. 
Do we want a Third Party or another way? 
Or do we just want different results?

Take a look at the Pirate Party from Europe also with roots here in the US. 
—Issue-specific(copyrights & patents)
—Technology driven methodology.
—International in scope. 
What can we learn from them?

TruthDiggers don’t have much love for the Tea Party, am I right? 
But can you learn from “the enemy?” 
The Tea Party is a misnomer—it’s a movement. 
But it exerts great influence on the Republican Party, doesn’t it?

What would a Democratic “Tea Party” movement look like? 
How might it start?

@Project Mayhem, you give up too easily.  But please, refrain from voting if you must.  I’ve got you covered with my vote.

——

@Cliff Carson:

Many of Sirota’s columns proceed from false major premises, so it’s dangerous to base discussions upon them. 
But let’s assume, augrendo, that Sirota’s right, the two-headed monster exists and needs to be slain. 

Kill the monster one head at a time, you say?  Choose one party and shun them forever?  Ok so far. 
And you choose to expunge the Republican party and vow never to vote for any of them ever again.  Fine…

But then you ask the public to go along and also not vote for anyone with a Republican head.
And that’s where you lose.

To those with Repub leanings this sounds like:
“Let’s play Russian Roulette—here, you go first.”
Asking the Dems to be the first head chopped off would bring the same response.

The first parts of your idea have some merit.
Just let each of the rest of us choose for ourselves which head to chop, ok?

That way, though the monster keeps both heads, at least it gets smaller.

@Inherit the Wind:
Whether Bill Clinton deserved or earned his luck is worthy of debate.
But lucky he was. 
Things just worked out for Clinton, there’s no denying.
By that measure his presidency, on the whole, has more in common with those of Ike, Theodore Roosevelt, Reagan and Coolidge. 
And less with those of Hoover, LBJ, Carter and W.

NO more democracy, that is a joke, the country as well as the rest of the so-called civilized world is finished ...
LIE CHEAT AND STEAL!

What do you think is going to happen?

PATHETIC, SMALL MINDED AND STUPID!!!
we all are doomed and nothing will change that…

WALL STREET = WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION

It strikes me that, rather than wrangling endlessly over which voting strategy will actually restart American democracy, we might face up to the fact that voting in an authoritarian system serves no other purpose than to distract the populace. Is it not delusional, given the size of the country and the extreme polarization of its electorate, to think that voting at this point could make the slightest difference in the direction the country is steamrolling? If the US is now an authoritarian, fascist state, as many here seem convinced, then any and every election is purely for show, a sham, a media illusion. It amazes me the amount of ink spilled, and the amount of thought given, in support of voting strategies that will return a supposed corporate fascist state to democracy. If one honestly believes that moneyed interests exercise total, or near total, control over the media, the police, education, and the military, then isn’t it time we just face up to the fact that voting is an absolute farce? And if that’s what one believes, then aren’t they better served to forget about voting and to get serious about fomenting revolution?

I don’t mean the above in a mean-spirited way, but considering the arguments of a lot of posters in this thread and others, it seems to me the only logical endpoint.

Imagine a national election in which the majority of voters refused to vote for either of the corporate (R) & (D) party’s candidates.

That would be an enormously important historic election for opponents of corporatism, regardless of which corporate candidate might be automatically installed… and those voting against corporatism wouldn’t need to agree upon whom to vote for, only which two not to vote for.

The dementia of Democrat voters is their belief that elections can only serve a good purpose if their evil wins.

Every election that has people fighting over whether to vote for the corporate party’s (R) or (D) candidate is an election in which natural persons have lost to corporate persons.

Who good intentioned people vote for isn’t nearly as important as having them not vote for either evil is.

The “Principles” of Liberal Voters:

http://chenangogreens.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=491&Itemid=1

David J. Cyr, September 25 at 8:18 am

David Cyr wrote:

“What I advocate for is for people to actually vote for what they say they are for… even if they have to write-in their own name because there’s no candidate standing for what they are for.”

Sorry David

That is not a winning strategy and you know it.

It appears that you are “voting” to keep the Two Headed Monster in power.

The Green Party nor any of the Independents as Individual Parties will ever unseat the current situation and you know that too.

So, if you want to reform the criminal Government currently in Washington why do you keep suggesting actions that you know will keep the Two Headed Monster in complete control?

To Anarcissie, September 25 at 7:58 am

It is all about Oil and has been for the last 100+ years.  The Elite engage the common man in wars for profit and they don’t give a damn about how many people die as long as it fattens their Bank account.

Read every work of this link. 
http://rwor.org/a/v21/1030-039/1035/caspian.htm

Here is an excerpt from it that I think applies to the difference between the common man and the Elite.

“Steal an apple, they call you a thief.
Steal a country, they call you an emperor.”

QUOTE, Cliff Carson:

Once again, what I haven’t seen in this thread, or any of the other threads is a Plan to slay the monster.

People like David Cyr want you to vote Green.

_________________

Well, Cliff Carson wants you to keep voting for one of the two heads of the monster — the one head of the two that has the brains the monster needs to survive. It’s loyal liberal Democrat voters who have made America’s fascism sustainable.

Actually, I don’t advocate that it’s necessary for people to vote Green, but that would be a considerably more constructively cast vote than any for any of the corporate party’s candidates. Nader is not a Green — he never was — and he was not a Green Party candidate in 2004 or 2008 (he was an independent candidate), but votes cast for him were votes against war and for Single-Payer. The votes for Kerry and Obama were votes for perpetual war, and against Single-Payer.

What I advocate for is for people to actually vote for what they say they are for… even if they have to write-in their own name because there’s no candidate standing for what they are for.

The corporate (R) & (D) party isn’t for anything that liberals so heavily advertise that they are for, so their votes for Democrats pervert the political process. The millions of liberal votes for Democrats ensure that elections serve no good purpose.

The Democrats perceived to be “good” are actually the worst, because it is those successfully appearing to be “good” Democrats who keep so many millions of people voting for all the Democrats who are transparently evil.

The first step is to stop collaborating. Only corporate person government collaborators vote for Democrats.

http://www.chenangogreens.org

In regard to events in Afghanistan, see (for instance) http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html.  The run-up to this intervention is described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan; I can’t vouch for its accuracy because I wasn’t there and am not an expert on Afghan affairs, but it goes along with other things I have read.  Conflicts between the West and Russia over central Asia (‘the Great Game’) go back to the 19th century; the American side, then, descends from the American takeover of the British imperial project.  However, the British had largely left Afghanistan to the Russians as long as the Russians did not overtly move armed forces into it.  Opening a contest for influence and dominance there was an aggressive change which must have been planned for some time.  To ascribe intervention to Reagan alone is ahistorical.

Dear Mr. Sirota

“By now, probably everyone reading this is already sick of America’s quadrennial political spectacle—the one in which politicians and media outlets ask us to believe that there remain vast differences between our two political parties.”

Anyone thinking you are wrong can be enlightened by reading the comments to your article.

Nearly all reflect a war of words that “My Monster head is better than Your Monster head”.  Almost none considers that you are correct even while they are busily proving it.

One side wants to get rid of one head while the other side wants to get rid of the other head , but none of them are prepared to get rid of the monster that gives both heads their life.

Mr. Sirota is there any hope for the future of America?

I doubt if presidents can do much to affect the economy as it is presently organized.  When Bush 1 called Reagan’s economics ‘voodoo’ he was telling only part of the story.  Most of economics is voodoo.  Schemes which work one year inexplicably stop working the next.  Presidents and their supporters take credit for good times, and blame bad times on their predecessors, foreigners, and evil spirits.  They might as well be studying the entrails of sacrificed sheep.

A more generic and effective revision of our economic system and relations, which might be effective, is beyond the scope and competence of the presidency.

I’ll give Clinton credit for being cheerful, indefatigable and seemingly intelligent, which reassured people even when they hated him.  The downside of that sort of personality seems to be an inability to keep one’s pants zipped, which seems like a small price to pay—indeed, one might see it as part of the entertainment.

I found Cyr’s and ITW’s last posts excellent commentaries on perspective, both of which seem valid to me.

I would point out, though, that while planning for the ‘Long War’ might have originated under Carter, it seems likely to have started as a contingency plan and not a focal one. Carter’s ultimate goal, from what I understand, was energy independence, something which would have obviated the need for the ‘Long War’. Of course, we know how that played out, but to lump Carter in with the current bumper crop of (D) corporate fascists seems somewhat disingenuous for someone of your political acumen.

To oddsox, September 23 at 6:01 am

One or two of you on here might recall that my call for the last few years has been to get rid of the Two Headed Monster in Washington.

One Party at a time.

Choose one - shun them forever, never again vote for that party’s Candidates.

Be forming a Coalition of Third Parties.

I chose the Republican Party back during Bush’s first term as the most vile of the two heads and for that reason I asked for the public to shun the Republican Party.

But the argument against that approach was then and still is now, right here in this thread, that we need a new Third Party.  When I first started there were 135 such Third Parties.  Number 136 or 137 ain’t gonna make any difference.

However, if those 137 would serve the people and commit to a Coalition, with a Convention for each party to send candidates, and if the Coalition would commit to voting for the Coalition Candidates of the 137 narrowed to a majority Coalition instead of a slate from each of the 137, and if that 20% mentioned by David Cyr, would join the Coalition, wouldn’t the result be that the new Party, the Coalition Party, would finish no worse than second?

The key to success in eliminating the Two Headed Monster is to commit to the destruction of one of the Two Heads of the Monster while building an alternative to present to the people of America.

Once again, what I haven’t seen in this thread, or any of the other threads is a Plan to slay the monster.

People like David Cyr want you to vote Green. 

I believe we should select a Moral and Ethical alternative to the Monster.  Not necessarily Red, White, Blue, or Green, but a Rainbow of those Parties.

Choosing one Independent solo entry is as history has proven not going to succeed.

It requires an organization of the people working for a common goal to accomplish something so major as reforming an entrenched criminal Government.

Think about it.

Anarcessie,

As far as I can recall,Jimmy Carter used “Soft Power” in conducting foreign policy,while Roland Reagan used “Hard Power”,for the same endeavor. The following major events attest to Carter’s using “Soft Power”:

(1) The Camp David Accord that has achieved and established peace between Egypt and Israel.

(2) Re-negotiation and resigning the Pannama Treaty.

(3) In 1979,the Soviet Union invaded and occupied Afghanistan. To express his indignation,Carter boycotted the Olympic Games which were held in Moscow,in 1980. More than sixty countries followed Carter’s leadership and also boycotted the games in Moscow.

It seems to me that the whole military push in Afghanistan was initiated and facilitated by the policy of “Hard Power” conducted by Reagan. I do recall seeing him,on TV,surrounding himself,in the White House,with Afghani war lords,most likely Talabans,and calling them,“Freedom Fighers”,for fighting the Soviet occupation of their country. What was missing,in that setting in the White House was the Arab Afghans,including Osama bin Laden,who were directed by the CIA and financed quietly by Saudi Arabia,for fighting side by side with those Afghani warlords against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Jimmy Carter had no hands in all of this. It was one of Reagan’s wars,resulting from his conduct of policy by “Hard Power”.

What is sad from all of the above is the fact that friends of yester years have become nowadays enemies.

QUOTE, johncp:

“In spite of this vicious criminality directed against him, he [Bill Clinton] left office with unprecedented approval from the voters.”
____________

There can be no evidence more damningly providing proof of Clinton’s criminality than his having “unprecedented approval from the voters.”

99% of American voters reliably criminally vote for more war every 4 years.

Although Clinton couldn’t decide what the meaning of genocide was, while a million Tutsi Rwandans were being hacked to death with machetes, he cynically seized the opportunity to profitably and most deviously (D) wage a “humanitarian” war.

Clinton’s ‘95 and ‘99 aerial bombings of Yugoslavia — with a resultant 4 civilians killed for every soldier targeted — was not humanitarian. It was done to provide an excuse to maintain the NATO forces, which should have been disbanded after the fall of the Soviet Union. When Clinton lied Yugoslavs died; after which Halliburton’s KBR was immediately Clinton Regime awarded a no-bid contract to build a massive new military base (Camp Bondsteel), providing the American military easy fighter sortie and troop deployment proximity to the Trans-Balkan oil pipeline region. NATO was reassigned to a new mission by the Clinton Regime, to be a permanent expeditionary invasion and occupation force to be used in the planned continuum of resource wars.

The planning for the Long War actually began during the nice smiley faced Jimmy Carter [Doctrine] Regime. The Reagan Doctrine and the Bush Doctrine both naturally evolved out of the Carter Doctrine and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Carter’s “Best and Brightest” Brain) plans.

There are no good Democrats. There are only corporate [WAR] party Democrats.

http://www.chenangogreens.org

Both Oddsox and Anarcissie commented that Bill Clinton was lucky enough to be President during times of economic health.

Lucky? Bullshit!

Have you forgotten the campaign? “It’s the Economy, Stupid!”

George H.W. Bush attempted to avoid the consequences of the economic mess Ronald Reagan left us in (including a national debt that increased more than all the other Presidents before him) and was forced, late in his administration to implement needed, but not sufficient tax increases.  They sank him.

Upon coming into office Clinton virtually IMMEDIATELY got his unpleasant task out of the way: He and Congress implemented a RETROACTIVE tax increase, going back 3 years. People were furious, but it worked! The economy righted itself and put us in a position where the budget could be balanced.

Perfectly timed tax increases. Not luck.
Wisely implemented anti-terrorist policies. Not luck.
The FIRST WTC bombing was at the beginning of HIS administration, just like the 2nd was at the beginning of Bush’s.  But Clinton treated it as a crime by criminals and didn’t waffle, unlike deer-in-the-headlights Bush.  Not luck.
Well-defined exit strategy in Bosnia. Not luck.
Brains to pull out of Somalia when “mission creep” made our involvement go toxic.  Not luck.
He was impeached in an attempt at a political coup.  THAT wasn’t luck!
He compromised to get things done, sometimes far more than I’d have liked, but he NEVER caved in the way Obama does, even when it forced a government shutdown.  Not luck.

There is much to criticize Bill Clinton for. But he wasn’t a “lucky” President.  He made his luck!

When the facts reveal Clinton to have been a powerful and effective president, the Clinton-haters try to reassemble the facts, rewrite history, essentially deceive the reader into thinking that Clinton had it easy, things were going in his direction, the political environment favored Clinton, and other empty bullshit.  Clinton was hounded, hated, envied, and finally impeached for any possible “reason” they could find, by a group of vermin in the republican ranks, for essentially nothing.  This effort was made, in my view, to disable his presidency, so that he wouldn’t be able to do for the nation the many things, including those 23 million new jobs, he sought, and delivered.  In spite of this vicious criminality directed against him, he left office with unprecedented approval from the voters.

El_Pinguino, September 24 at 11:14 am:

‘@ Anarcissie

I would venture to say that Clinton’s popularity was more being in the right place at the right time.

Consider the build out of the computer infrastructure. This was the prime growth period for what the computer chip’s invention promised. ...’

In my opinion, the era of serious funny money began with the Federal bailout of the stock market in 1987.  This served to produce ‘prosperity’ of a sort throughout the ‘90s but, as the dot-com crash later revealed, it was a hollow prosperity.  Of course, Bush 2 doubled down on the same policies.  We are now just coming to the end of that—well, I can’t call it a regime, because it was the opposite, a loss of control.

Jimmy Carter was the best president we have had in my lifetime.
I believe Obama has been the worst.
I didn’t expect much from him and he did even less.
I liked him better than hill because I mistakenly thought hill would attack Iran and bamer wouldn’t.
Any dem could have won this last election even Kucinich if he had not been shut out of the rigged debates.
Obama had this country handed to him on a platter and he couldn’t turn it over to wall street and the insurance company’s quick enough. The dude ain’t stupid but he must think his supporters are.
I am as dumb as a box of rocks but even I can see Obama sold his “five dollar” supporters out before he even took office.

Ron Paul says many things I agree with and if you ain’t heard him you can Google               Ron paul/Tim russert/2007 and read the transcript from the “meet the press” show. Russert spends the half hr. hammering Paul with the tough questions unlike the “Chaney cheering club” he hosted before we attacked Iraq.
I think Ron Paul is honest and would get attacked by the banksters and the media.
The times would get worse but at least we wouldn’t have to live the lie we are currently supposed to accept as “Less evil”.

If I get a choice between Obama and evil I will pick evil this time. We must kill the D.N.C. and wake up the sleeping sheeple.

Or we could vote for Ron Paul in the primary and force Obama to face up to the real issues, like Torture, war, new nukes, wall street rained in, single payer health care, bush and Chaney tried for their various crimes, restoration of habeas corpus, stopping the illegal surveillance of our phone and internet and homes and getting rid of the unpatriotic act.
I could go on and on but will omit the other things Obama failed to even try to accomplish.

I am not being paid by anyone to post this.

I thought the big ‘defense’ buildup and the intervention in Afghanistan began on Carter’s watch.

President Jimmy Carter is the most decent one among them all. It was most unfortunate that he was defeated by a combination of the following major factors:

~ Bankesters Disatisfaction

~ “October Surprise”.

~ The “Moral? Majority” of the late Jerry Falwell and companies.

The “War of De-regulations” against regulations of corporate America started in America’s airports,in 1980’s;and was extended by foolish extrapolations to other sectors of the economy,ever since.

Adding to all of the above foregoings,the financial burdens of America’s unnecessry wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan and the more than 700 military bases world wide,stretching from Kuwait to Germany to Japan,and in-between,have resulted in America’s financial difficulties.

Can America get out of its current financial miseries? I believe it can,since it is fundamentally remains a wealthy country. All it needs is good and honest leadership like FDR,Eisenhower and JFK and even Jimy Carter who was the victim of the three factors spicified above.

@johncp

..ON HILLARY
You don’t mention my name, but appear to label me a “Clinton-hater” because I wrote:
“I don’t care for Hillary Clinton…” and “I’m glad we have Obama instead.”
That’s quite a stretch, isn’t it?

I’ll admit this much, though: 
I don’t hate Hillary, but neither do I trust her intentions. 
Still much more comfortable with Obama on that score.

You object to my mentioning her age.
My reasons are in the context of her possible primary challenge to Obama. 
A 65-year old Hillary in November 2012 probably wouldn’t be hindered by age (she’s 7 months younger than Mitt Romney, does that sound better?)
But at age 69 in 2016, she might be. 
At some level Hillary must be weighing her opportunities. 

As for her “below zero” answer to Alison Kosik’s query on the likelihood she will challenge Obama, well … the Clintons are very good with words, aren’t they?
Again, an invitation to google “negative odds wagering.”
This whole thing with Hillary and Bill amping up the newsfeeds right now is a trial balloon.

Even if she has designs on the nomination, Hillary knows she must be careful. 
History is not on the side of same-party challengers to sitting Presidents. 

She can’t be seen as trying to unseat or torpedo Obama.
Rather, Hillary’s image needs to be upon a white horse, galloping in from afar to save Party and Country.

Maybe even with Obama’s blessing.

That all could happen if things keep spiraling downward. 
Inflation is still tame, but this year it’s double what it was in 2010. 
If it doubles again, it’ll gin up the Jimmy Carter Misery Index comparisons. 
And, though still unlikely, we may yet have the double-dip recession so many fear.
Of course, unemployment trumps all and if that’s back up to 10% or higher….
Not rooting for any of this.
The election is still so far away…
I voted for Obama and would like to again. 
(... wish I had a reason.)
But Hillary bears watching. 
Always.

PS: 
Joe Biden is a good soldier and would step down if asked.  He’ll turn 70 just after the election. 

So, Hillary as VP?

No chance.
Obama doesn’t trust her either—that’s why he picked her for Sec of State:  she’s out of the country a lot and down the list of succession (4th).

QUOTE, of johncp:

“I’m a democrat, but I understand, that our leadership is small, since the majority of them are unprincipled frauds…:
_______________

It’s important to be case sensitive when using that word, because Democrats are not democrats.

It’s the corporate party’s Democrat voters who have ensured that elections would serve no good purpose.

It’s the corporate party’s Democrat voters who have protected the corporate-state from any movement for democracy.

Democrats were never the lesser evil. They’ve been the people who have ensured that evil always wins.

http://www.chenangogreens.org

@manny
I’ve learned not to argue with those who do not remember the ‘80s fondly. 
Happily, you are in the minority, however—you should know that much. 
That said, you’ll have to read Sirota’s book “Back to Our Future.” 
You will enjoy it greatly. 
I read it and didn’t care for it and that should be enough of an encouragement for you.

@ El_Pinguino and Anarcissie—

ON THE CLINTON YEARS:
You may remember at the close of Clinton’s presidency there being posed the Great Questions:
“How would History assess Bill Clinton? 
What would be his legacy?”

One news commentator (wish I remembered who ... perhaps Frank Reynolds or Howard K Smith) nailed it: Clinton presided well over smooth seas in a pre-war era. 
Another lampooned that he should quickly invade Canada so as to establish something of substance. 

My take at the time still resonates.
Bill Clinton:  America’s Luckiest President.

This wasn’t meant as a put-down. 
Indeed, we could use a little of that luck right now. 
But I believe it remains a consensus position upon which both his harshest critics and most strident supporters could agree.

It’s extremely annoying, to hear repeated over and over again, the notion that the “parties” are two heads on one monster,”  “there’s no difference between the two parties,” etc.  This is the purest nonsense.  The two major political parties espouse a more or less cohesive set of principles.  What has this to do with the fact that “people” are required to represent these principles to the nation?  Nothing.  Party principles are one thing, and the people (the politicians) that deliver these princples to the voter and the populations, are another.  Most so-called democrats are hacks and hipocrites, occupying the offices reserved for democrats, but having no committment, no responsibility to party principles.  It would make far more sense to say, that most democrats have found it policitally expedient to wear the party name, but when it comes to serving the principles of a demcratic party, they’re simply “out to lunch.”  I’m a democrat, but I understand, that our leadership is small, since the majority of them are unprincipled frauds, interested only in the perks and the pretenses of aristocratic power it permits them to display for their fawning and credulous followers.

The “good” times for Americans were mostly the result of externalizing costs on “others” elsewhere.

(D) “good” times that liberals use to rationalize their immorality and to justify their devotion to the Democratic wing of the American Right have been the corporate state’s pumps before the dumps.

http://www.chenangogreens.org

@ Anarcissie

I would venture to say that Clinton’s popularity was more being in the right place at the right time.

Consider the build out of the computer infrastructure. This was the prime growth period for what the computer chip’s invention promised.

1) cargo tracking in global shipping
2) government databases
3) corporate databases
4) wall street trading .... the list goes on.

Massive amounts of money (paid for or not on credit) was spent employing the promise of the computer revolution. People were hired to run network cables everywhere, fiber optics crossed the oceans.. programmers hired to create software….etc

In my mind it doesn’t matter who was president. The real reason times were good was the build out of the computer chip’s promise. Not who was president.. Not the tax policy.. or monetary policy.

Good times were simply going to happen.

Coincidentally, for me, I happened to hear David Sirota’s radio broadcast on talk radio yesterday. Sirota has a nice, smooth, radio delivery which, aside from his comments about licking Ben and Jerry’s “Shweddy Balls”, serves to conceal his lunacy nicely.

Disparaging Democrats and attempting to conceal the very real dichotomy between Democrats and Republicans serves no good end and accomplishes nothing.

It is my premonition that in the future Americans will look back longingly at the Obama Presidency, just as they do regarding Carter’s Presidency. Both presidents being far, far from perfect, merely better than the available alternatives.

Unintended wisdom; ‘I have yet to meet an intelligent Democrat..’

I’d add ‘or an intelligent Republican’. The intelligent voters are looking around for another choice.

This is one of Sirota’s better efforts.. affirmed by the many ways his points are repeated and restated in the excellent comments gallery.

And thanks especially to the one commenter who included the Carter speech link.

Adios!

a governance [system of rule] based on personal  
supremacist ideology; which includes private or
individualistic ownership of work, ore, fish, forests,
transport, education, information, healthcare, etc., may last
forever, even tho i takes one good eye to see that it is an
iniquitous, warlike, predatory, cruel, racist, discriminatory
system of rule.

in such a governance [u.s, eg], more than 90% of people
may be living on drugs, drinks, pills; in fear of one another;
anger against and envy of sybaritic class of life.

or some turn to dead jesus, mohammed, and moshe or
their [or people who put words in their mouths] quite
dangerous writings for pious and impious, biota; our
waters, and air, etc.

both parties and ?every member of both parties or two
wings of one goose swear allegiance to that ideology.
any ideology that teaches interdependence between people
and their ownership of everything that’s in or on that
country is proclaimed as demonic.

and since the followers of mohammed, moshe, and jesus
[the three very evil shemites] always support that system,
the goose wld always receive at least 30% or more of the
votes regardless what congress, cia/fbi/army does.

that’s the capital the system wld never ever let go. let’s also
not forget that in last election 99% of voters also supported
that system.
how about election ‘12? about the same!! tnx

Clinton was popular because there was a lot of funny money around, and the bill collector had not yet appeared at the door.

The U.S. was set up as a republic to be dominated by a wealthy upper class, which at the time was considered the normal order of things.  ‘Democracy’ in those days meant ‘mob rule’; it was generally a term of abuse.  The founders did not anticipate giving the vote to poor or working-class people, women, or persons of non-European ancestry (many of whom were slaves anyway).

It is true, all too true that both parties embody the evils plaguing our politics and government.

But the core issues are constitutional.  The Constitutional system of selecting law-makers and presidents is deeply flawed, because it was designed for a very democratic polity that was steeped in and loved the republican civic traditions.  Our society doesn’t even vaguely resemble that revolutionary political culture.

Furthermore, our civic character rarely, if ever, exhibits any republican civic virtue, or democratic listening and patience, or teaching by example how a democratic republic functions when it is healthy.  Where are the examples?  “The revolution will not be televised.”

Finally, if we want a healthy polity, we must invent it right where we live, with the neighbors we have, and with the determination to leave our children’s children for at least seven generations a better place than the one we inherited from the “greatest generation” of plunders, exploiters, thieves, deceivers, dissemblers, cowards, and professional self-deluders.

We will get nowhere pointing out the obvious to those unwilling to do anything to grow themselves out of their civic incompetence.  If we want civic health, we must exemplify it, and ask others to do likewise.

QUOTE: (of an anonymous avatar wishing future generations to inherit just a fart):

“40% of Americans will vote for a Republican, no matter who it is.
40% of Americans will vote for a Democrat, no matter who it is.
The middle 20% determines who our President is.

Of them, at least 8% will go GOP. 8%, Dem.

Our future is in the hands of 4% of Americans, and that’s why we get Ronald Reagans and George W. Bushs as President.”

______________________

That’s typically ill liberal logic: claiming that some 4% thinking before voting are responsible for the result of 96% not thinking.

We wouldn’t have had Reagan, or the Bush’s, or the deep depravity of Obamanation, if the sane and sensible minority who have refused to vote for any of the corporate party’s (R)s or (D)s were the only people allowed to vote.

America’s elections have had the retrograde results and catastrophic consequences they’ve had because approximately 99% of those who voted would only vote for a corporate party candidate… every time. If portraits of Hitler and Mussolini were propped up on “debate” stages to be the two “electable” corporate (R) & (D) party 2012 POTUS choices, one of those dead fascist’s portraits would by popular vote mandate become the next Commander-In-Chief… instead of the living breathing fascist who will.

Elections might possibly begin to serve some good purpose if the only people allowed to vote would be those in the other majority — the majority who have never voted before.

http://www.chenangogreens.org

Just a note here.  As far as NAFTA is concerned, every president, including Carter, strongly favored Nafta.  If Johnson had been president when NAFTA came up for another vote, it would have passed, and Johnson would have signed it.  If Carter had been president NAFTA would have passed, clearly, Carter openly and strongly supported NAFTA.  Every living democratic and republican president, strongly supported NAFTA.  It’s only the most clueless and politically naive democrats, that pretend to oppose Clinton because of NAFTA.  I have yet to meet an intelligent democrat that holds NAFTA against Clinton.  Clinton left office with a 70% approval rating.  Can the Clinton-haters explain that?  Can the Clinton-haters explain how it was, that surveys and polls taken as Clinton left office, found that Clinton “tied” with FDR as the most popular democratic president?
Someone on this list who “hates” Hillary, is glad that Obama is president, rather than her.  Does he know that Hillary “won” the popular vote against Obama, who was only able to win, with a   suspicious and small majority of the super-delegates? Does he know that Obama received the largest amount of financial support from Goldman-Sachs and other corporate forces, to run his campaign against Hillary?  Obama received more money from these corporate doners, than Hillary and McCain combined.  Can he tell me why?  I wonder why there’s always a Hillary hater mixed in with these posts?  No matter what the subject, if its related to matters or people however remotely related to her, Hillary haters are anxious to take the opportunity to put Hillary down, in much the same way, and on the same flimsy grounds they used to put her husband down.  Why?  Are they worried about something?  This Clinton-hater first said he “disliked Hillary,” then, absurdly, immediately added that she was 64, as if this fact would turn us against her.  She’s almost certain not to run a second time.  But if she were to change her mind, you can be sure that in 2016, she’ll be as sharp as a tack, and still a thousand times better qualified for the presidency, than the republican in dem clothing, we have now.  It’s not her age that qualifies her for the presidency, it’s her health, her sharpness, her stamina, that qualifies her.  Reagan is the most honored and admired of republican presidents, though the feeble-minded that glorify him, never suggest that he was too old, even though his mind was gone by the time he left office.  Yet, these same people pretend that Hillary would be a disability simply because of her age.  Haven’t these people ever heard of the “wisdom,” the experience that comes with age?

There are some wonderful talks by Gore Vidal on this very issue going back to 1991 at least. The political system in the U.S. reminds me of—a re-enactment of historical battles; the competition between two major brands of soft drinks or soap. Websites like Politico play into this will all the gusto they can muster and shows like NPR (Nice Polite Republicans) “On The Media” will be doing “trenchant” (ha!) analysis of the media climate which will reinforce the myths. I can almost hear that shill Bob Garfield now talking about the “divided” electorate and the “battle for the center.” 

Bring on the Red, White and Blue bunting, it’s show time!

I voted for Jerry Brown in 1976 in the Maryland Democratic Primary which he won.

Subsequently he was beat out by Carter as the nominee who I voted for.

I still think it was the Banks which got rid of Carter by keep the rates artificially high, soon as Reagan got in they dropped.  People vote with their wallets and double digit mortgage rates are a big turn off.

The repugs, same as today, were no different then in savaging, lying and smearing Carter at every possible opportunity, instead of doing what they were elected to do-make life better for the citizens.
the more things change, the more they stay the same.
the repugs are Evil, the dems are dumb.

Carter had just written the “Peace not apartheid” book on Israel. This is why he is being shunned.

Ron Paul 2012

I always liked that picture. Carter seems to be distancing
himself from the rest of the crowd.  El_Pinguino

Any decent, self-respecting politician would distance
oneself from these four.  We saw that a decent, reasonably
honest politician lasted only one term in the White House.

The present POTUS “occupant” may turn out to be a one-
termer also, but not due to decency and honesty.

Interesting, how GHWBushSr appears to be leaning against
“Barack H. Obama,” and slumping so as not to appear taller. 
“Barack H. Obama.”  The pawn of the super-rich.  Sad.

This story by Sirota is much better explained by comparing the US system with the Nazi Empire system of running a phony government by installing a “Vichy” party—- like the French “Vichy” party c. 1940.

The Nazi Empire, which had captured France, installed a crude, single-party “Vichy” government, which all but the stupidest French people knew was merely the disguised hand of the Nazi EMPIRE.

However, the global corporate/financial/militarist EMPIRE, which has fully ‘captured’ our former country (as surely as the Nazis captured and ruled France) has installed a somewhat more sophisticated TWO-Party “Vichy” faux-government, and yet this simple trick of using a TWO-Party “Vichy” government to hide Empire seems to have been very effective in fooling all the Americans all the time!

Another way of trying to explain this simple ploy to American dopes is to remind people of how they laughed at ‘stupid’ Charlie Brown in the Schultz comic strip each fall/football season when Lucy promised to “hold the football” and then pulled it away and made Charlie fall on his arse.

This is an alternative easy way of understanding how the ruling global corporate/financial/militarist EMPIRE uses TWO-Lucy parties (instead of one Lucy) to continually “pull away the football” of real democracy, and make the American people fall on their arses every four years.

Charlie Brown (and Schultz) must be laughing at the dumb Americans now who continually are fooled by this simple trick of using TWO identities (one Lucy wearing a ‘D’ on her dress, and one with a big ‘R’) to fool all the people all the time.

So its not so funny, is it, when a trick played by the Nazis in 1940, and by ‘Lucy’ for years in the American Sunday comics, is simply expanded by using TWO-‘Vichy’ governments and TWO-Lucy lies to fool all the Americans all the time.

The truth hurts——- more than most people will ever understand.

But, unfortunately, their kids and grandkids will soon understand far better than the current deceived rubes of America.

It is commonly said, “Everything changed after 9/11”.

Yes, “We are all rubes of EMPIRE now.”

Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine

Liberty & democracy
over
violent
empire

New America People’s Party 2012—- our last chance “Against Empire” [Parenti]

@Inherit the Wind:
Largely agree with you here, ITW.

Hey, here’s a wild-hair thought:

You and I also remember that despite the growing discontent with Carter, (the “Misery Index” (that’s unemployment + inflation), the Iran Hostages et al), he was still able to withstand a challenge from within the Dem party by Ted Kennedy.  Just a month before the Crisis In Confidence speech, Carter correctly predicted he’d “whip his ass.”
And so that brings us to present day and our current cast of characters.  Past may be Prelude as it applies to a primary challenge for Obama.

But is it just me, or am I seeing a lot more of Bill and (ahem) Hillary Clinton in the news lately?

Curious that when asked, Hillary replied the odds of her running in 2012 were “less than zero.”
So google “negative odds betting.”  Surprise!

I don’t care for Hillary Clinton (64 next month), I’m glad we have Obama instead.  But she’s out there.  And the Clintons are very clever.  And they’re winners. 

...just a wild-hair thought…

OddSox:
I, too, remember Jimmy Carter well.  I voted in a Presidential election for the first time in 1976, and I voted for Carter.

He had a brilliant vision, almost genius, but lacked Reagan’s, Clinton’s and Bush II’s ability to get his agenda done.

He was only wrong about one thing: That America would actually WORK to end the energy crisis forever by changing our energy paradigm.  Reagan and the GOP shut that down and we have never recovered.

And he was damned naive about how his own party would undercut him and to what length of dirty tricks the GOP would stoop to.

Project Mayhem, September 23 at 4:02 am Link to this comment

Carter at his finest: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCOd-qWZB_g
*************

It was dreadfully hard to watch this and realize yet again how 32 years have been squandered. One of Ronald Reagan’s first acts was to remove the solar panels from the White House. He then went on to kill every conservation measure he could and force even more into the control and mercy of OPEC.

The meanness and narrow-mindedness of Congress is even worse now.

Carter WAS a man with prescience.  He still is.
40% of Americans will vote for a Republican, no matter who it is.
40% of Americans will vote for a Democrat, no matter who it is.
The middle 20% determines who our President is.

Of them, at least 8% will go GOP. 8%, Dem.

Our future is in the hands of 4% of Americans, and that’s why we get Ronald Reagans and George W. Bushs as President.

@project mayhem:

I’m older and remember Jimmy Carter as President.  He was regarded then as a fine man and still is today.  Just not a very good president.

Thanks for sharing the link to his speech.  It was comforting to hear it again some 30 years hence.  Particularly at 5:00 when Carter mentions a poll showing more Americans think the “next 5 years will be worse than the last 5 years.”  Turns out they were mistaken and perhaps time will show that those of us who feel that way today are mistaken as well. 

Where Carter went wrong was with his own crisis of confidence. He had vision but no agenda.  Prescient or not, he was depressing. It’s no wonder he was a 1-term president. 

Today, Sirota has taken up the charge to rewrite the 1980s as a decade of greed and excess. 
Many on TruthDig have bought into that revisionist notion. 

But as the decade progressed we saw the an end to the Cold War, reduced inflation and unemployment, lower taxes with increased tax revenues and a stronger dollar.

These are facts.

(The music was better then, too. That’s an opinion.)

Good luck on a second party.  But I think it will be subject to the same corrupting pressures that worked on the previous parties.  Undisturbed and unthreatened, a capitalist polity tends to make the rich richer and the poor poorer until serious problems emerge, like persistent unemployment and depression.  The solution has often been war and imperialism.  These options seem to have run out, although you never know.  But if you want something different I think you’ll have to build it from the ground up.

What about a viable second party?

QUOTE, David Sirota:

“By now, probably everyone reading this is already sick of America’s quadrennial political spectacle—the one in which politicians and media outlets ask us to believe that there remain vast differences between our two political parties.”
________________

Every time anyone refers to “our two political parties” (or “both parties”) they provide evidence that America’s “education” system has accomplished it’s goal: stupification.

There are Republicans and there are Democrats; there are Republicans who are “Conservative” registered and there are Democrats who are “Working Families” registered; but every one of them votes together in solidarity for the corporate party’s candidates… to always get the same evil shit either poorly done by Republicans or well done by Democrats.

The corporate state wouldn’t allow elections if the liberals didn’t force the “ignorant” fools to vote for the corporate party’s Republicans, and the conservatives didn’t force the “intelligent” fools to vote for the corporate party’s Democrats.

America never achieved democracy because there were to many “progressive” Democrats defending the “two party” system having just one corporate agenda.

http://www.chenangogreens.org

With the election still 13+ months distant, there is still time for a viable 3rd party to emerge. 
And perhaps win in state races or a Congressional seat or two. 

A 3rd party could also influence the 2012 Presidential race. 
But history shows us a 3rd party candidate would have a very slim chance to win or even capture electoral votes.

Bi Partisan has become synonymous with Double Cross.

When CEO’s transfer back and forth between corporations and the agencies that are
supposed to regulate them the public is betrayed.  This betrayal can be measured in the
deaths, of men women and children in this country, and the impoverishment of this land.

The corporate crooks that run this country believe they are above the law because they
own the government.

Until they pay all of them, for their crimes this country will keep circling around the drain.

It was before my time, but watching Carter’s 1979 ‘crisis of confidence’ discussion (more a frank conversation than a speech, it seems to me) on youtube is striking for both its prescience and sensibility. Hard to believe that over thirty years later, America has yet to take to heart the wise course Carter suggested. To me, it’s always seemed as though 1980 marked the year when America chose to embrace fantasy and eschew reality, to enter the somnambulism of the eternal, unchanging Americana of myth. Nonsensical, dehumanized, increasingly depraved political and economic policies have been the result of our collective turning away from the pragmatism of Carter to revel in the ultranationalist dreams of Reagan and those who have followed ever since.

I’m with Patrick Henry on this one.

Carter at his finest: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCOd-qWZB_g

The answer is a viable third party. The Republican
party was founded during a time of political turmoil.
It’s time for a new way.

Carter is the only ‘great’ one there who I would consider voting for again.

We need a third and fourth party.

I always liked that picture. Carter seems to be distancing himself from the rest of the crowd.