If we spent more time researching the candidate we ARE supporting instead of focusing all our attention on “the other guy”, we might be surprised at what we learn. The only winner in a Two Party voting system will always be “The Establishment”, regardless of which candidate that wins. If we don't learn this, nothing changes. Voting for a Third Party candidate is the only way to break the corruption of Two Party duopolies. There are REAL Anti-War, Pro-Republic, Pro-Civil Liberties Third Party choices in this election.
I cannot, in good conscience, support either of the Two Party, pro-war candidates. Careful what you vote for - you might just get it!
by
Tippy Canoe (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 25 comments)
on Thursday, October 9, 2008 at 8:03:49 AM
For those of you who missed the opening shots of this campaign 1 1/2 years ago, Obama has been trained, advised, handled and packaged to appeal to the American voter. Watch his opening remarks then and compare them to now and anyone can see that he has been trained to speak, walk and smile in a smooth manner. In my opinion, he is nothing more than a snake oil saleman looking to profit from his experiences. When he loses the election, he has a mega-million dollar book deal waiting for him so he really has nothing to lose.
by
John Shriver (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 56 comments)
on Thursday, October 9, 2008 at 8:24:31 AM
Sometimes you have to go for the block. Are you arguing that Obama's flaws are worse then McCain's? Please make your case, this time without leaving anything out. Be sure to comment on McCain's horrendous flip flops on his lifelong signature issues...
by
Gustav Wynn (66 articles, 44 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 305 comments)
on Thursday, October 9, 2008 at 8:39:48 AM
Even if the rhetoric between McCain & Obama differs, the POLICY itself is still the same and that is this (borrowed from another poster): We are "Team America: World Police" and we'll bomb, invade, overthrow, and dictate as much or as little as we please. That POLICY is interventionism and Obama is going to continue with that policy.
Here are some other points:
Obama’s “residual” troop plan leaves 40,000 – 80,000 US troops in Iraq to “support” our unaccountable corporate mercenary army, Blackwater, and he will not sign on to legislation to remove Blackwater from Iraq. This policy means that corporate war profiteers will continue to profit at taxpayer expense. (Halliburton, DynCorp, Raytheon, KBR, G.E., Lockheed Martin, etc.) 40,000 - 80,000 troops left in Iraq certainly isn't my idea of "bringing the troops home".
Obama has pledged to increase the number US troops and expand the size of the war in Afghanistan and has spoke of invading yet another sovereign nation, Pakistan.
Obama has said he will continue America’s “special relationship” with Israel and while pandering for AIPAC support, he has threatened war with Iran. This is not good news for the citizens of Palestine and Iran.
Obama, Biden and McCain certainly have espoused pro-war stances and have continually voted to fund these illegal wars of aggression - which have destroyed, and continue to destroy, millions of innocent civilian lives and the reputation of the US, at large. Massive amounts of radioactive depleted uranium, used by our US military, has been scattered on the battlefields and in residential neighborhoods. This is a preposterous international war crime committed by the United States. Depleted Uranium has a radioactive half-life of 4.5 billion years. This form of genocide from DU will last, literally, forever. (Why do you think other countries hate the US – because of our “freedom”? Or because of our atrocities?)
Budget analysts have determined that neither Obama & McCain’s budget plans will be balanced and will yet again increase the size of the national debt, so government over-spending will not be curtailed and our country will spend beyond it’s means again. Our military budget was $482 Billion dollars this year. Obama has yet to respond as to why the US keeps more than 700 military bases around the world in more than 130 countries. This imperialist overreach will eventually break the economic spine of our country. History proves that great nations do not fail because they have weak militaries. Great nations fail because they have weak economies.
Obama’s website does not even mention the words “Federal Reserve” and he has made no mention of this private, not federal, bank’s role in devaluing the US dollar’s worth by almost 60% since 2002. Obama’s Keynesian economic advisors have offered no plan to fix the current economic debacle. Expect inflation to only worsen. Things don't cost more, but rather your dollars are worth less & less because of Federal Reserve policy.
One of Obama’s top foreign policy advisors, Zbigniew Brzezinski, helped to create the very ‘terrorist threat’ we face today during the Carter Administration under the guise of the taxpayer-funded CIA secret program called “Operation Cyclone”. This program ultimately created Osama bin Laden & al Qaeda via the MAK. Brzezinski has stated that he has no regrets for it. Obama has publicly lauded his admiration of Brzezinski, saying “he is one of our most outstanding scholars, one of our most outstanding thinkers. He has proven to be an outstanding friend and somebody who I have learned an immense amount from and for him to support me in this campaign... is a testimony to his generosity.” I find it sadly ironic that the guy who created al Qaeda now wants Obama to slay Osama.
Obama, Biden & McCain voted for the $700 Billion dollar Wall Street bailout bill at taxpayer expense. Goldman Sachs is Obama’s largest campaign contributor. Citigroup is #4. J.P. Morgan is #6. UBS is #9. Lehman Brothers is #10. Time Warner #12, Morgan Stanley #16. General Electric, one of the top defense contractors for these wars and media conglomerate owner is #20.
Obama is the second largest recipient of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac campaign donations, following closely behind Sen. Chris Dodd.
Both Obama and McCain have repeatedly voted to restrict our 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, & 14th Amendment rights and increase the power of the Executive branch - the Patriot Act II and the FISA Spy bills being the most glaring examples. Neither McCain nor Obama have protected your Bill of Rights and have essentially helped Bush destroy the Constitution and the "checks and balances" system therein. Obama said he would not vote for the Patriot Act II or the FISA bill, yet he did. How can I respect that?
All of these points are easily verifiable, if only you will look.
by
Tippy Canoe (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 25 comments)
on Thursday, October 9, 2008 at 9:15:49 AM
You went ahead and gave me a fine list of Obama policies which are as bad as McCain's, but you left out the appreciable differences, so let's try again. Do you make absolutely no distinction between Obama and McCain, so much so that you have given up and will just moan from the sidelines?
For example isn't it better to at least get out of Iraq? To redistribute Bush's tax breaks across the middle class? To immediately begin alternative energy incentivization? To restore low interest college loan subsidization? To institute campaign finance reforms? These were all stated Obama aims in pre-election speeches that he has stuck to. He therefore is a better choice in a system that allows third party candidates no voice whatsoever, unfortunately.
Yes, this is your country - composed of 30% die hard conservatives, 30% liberals, and 40% somewhere in the middle. Unless you first change this, we will always have candidates of great compromise. This is America, where we are so ideologically diverse that it is (currently) impossible for a anti-war, anti-Federal Reserve candidate to get elected as President.
I'd argue a smarter tactic was accepting incremental change and then fighting from within the Kucinich wing of the Dem party for greater reform, against the Hillary/Pelosi/Reid wing - focusing exactly on the issues mentioned in your paste job. But the Presidency is a big, monolithic distraction from the important Congressional races taking place. Since we agree on the what but just not the how, I'll share what a bunch of pissed-off progressives have done in my area - they've descended on the local Dem committee and outnumbered the good ol' boys, sending them packing in a huff. The energy and activism and sheer turnout of young voters and new voters has literally commandeered our local Dem machine and will now be determining the trajectory of the party. We expect a progressive candidate in our Congressional seat by 2010 but this takes time and work.
So quit blogging and do something. If you're for Nader or whoever, build a real political party from the ground up so you can be competitive in every city and town in every state in the U.S., gaining local seats, then Congressional seats, then maybe you can compete for the White House.
If you intend for people to vote for your ideas, you'll need to spend time and money in "messaging" - few people understand the most basic issues in this election, let alone the complexities of the bailout and credit default swaps.
Strategically, Obama is saving both time and money by matching whatever McCain does because with just weeks to go, it nullifies the issue. For Barack to have opposed the bailout it would have meant tens of millions to first educate the voters on what it is and why it's bad. His noticible quiet on the matter shows he is just mirroring McCain who looks even worse for his lifetime of fighting for deregulation - this has given Obama the lead.
So yes this is all a game - this is our reality - but nobody skips to the top just by whining, blogging or cut n' paste campaigns online. You also need to share your pick for President so we can see your motives with transparency because you are so new here - my prediction is that no one other then Obama or McCain will win a single electoral college vote. What's your prediction?
by
Gustav Wynn (66 articles, 44 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 305 comments)
on Thursday, October 9, 2008 at 10:24:55 AM
I’ve only registered to participate in the forums as of recent, but OpEdNews has been one of my regular internet stops for years now. With all due respect, just because I’m the new kid to sign up on the block doesn’t mean that I haven’t been paying attention here for a long time.
Your points above are noted and I think you and I agree on several things, but as I’ve stated before, I cannot support a pro-war candidate regardless of domestic policy and that is what you’re failing to see. I simply will not support “winning for the sake of winning” or even the “lesser of two evils” because, just like the Wall Street bailout, the long-term detriment of this will certainly outweigh any short-term benefit and will have far greater repercussions in the future. If we all know the Two Party system is corrupt, then why perpetuate that corruption by participating in it? That’s called “principle” and it is the reason I will not get on board with either mainstream political party. The Dems & GOP offer me this choice: pro-war foreign policy or pro-war foreign policy. And THAT, in and of itself, is a sticking point for me. Everything else aside, I will not condone it by looking away at all the “other perks”.
As an Independent voter, I haven’t made my final decision for which third party candidate or write-in I’ll be voting for come November, but you can bet my vote will fall along these lines: “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” –John Quincy Adams
You said, “isn't it better to at least get out of Iraq?” …sigh… When will fact replace “belief”? It has long been no secret that we will never leave Iraq, so I don’t understand where this idea of “getting out of Iraq” comes from.
You also said, “So quit blogging and do something.” Well, I am. And have been. Since 2002, I have submersed myself into learning the history of bad US foreign policy. Besides being elected at the local level to a seat on my town’s Charter Enforcement Commission, I currently have been involved in studying the role of the state constitution by a state constitutional expert. I have been involved in organizing an academic symposium and other events on the unasked and unanswered questions surrounding 9/11 and continue to participate with my group. I am involved in Anti-war, impeachment, and war crimes groups as well. I attend as many public lectures by former officials as time allows. I have sign-waved, fundraised, and organized events for my former candidate, have raised money/organized events to get alternate delegates to the national convention, have helped a local candidate with her campaign, written/called my Rep & Senators a bazillion times… and you know what? All this “eternal vigilance” stuff gets pretty tiring, but I will never abandon my ability to influence critical thinking among citizens via internet “blogging”.
by
Tippy Canoe (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 25 comments)
on Thursday, October 9, 2008 at 1:45:03 PM
...do what we can for the anti-war cause. I'll do what I can from inside the local Dem party because it's been amazing. A cadre of progressives have taken a majority. These people held weekly anti-war protests since the original invasion (300+ weeks and counting) and decided after the 2006 Congress failed to act to end Iraq, to form a voting bloc.
Once these people joined the Dem party, they BLOCKED the chair from doing sweetheart re-zoning stuff for out-of-area developers. This is the sense of strategy.
Since you've gotten involved in local politics I'm surprised you haven't already seen the realities of governance - compromise. Looking to get even one the few votes you might need for uncontested positions, you need to build bridges across policy, principle and philosophy.
The bills you complain Obama voted for were specifically designed to compromise anyone in Congress who would run for President. It's a game played by evil fools and the need is there to block them, but it takes quite a bit of effort and time.
If you think anyone will be noticing and adding up the protest votes this year, just look at the last cycle. I feel completely principled in voting to block McCain/Palin. Not only that, Obama will be listening to people who contributed to him and voted for him first and foremost in 2012 - he's already heard from us on FISA and has taken note, measured his enthusiasm and backpedaled.
So this is how it works. But let me tell you the things you get to do once you control your party. You can put local candidates on the ballot without petitions or signature drives, you get to caucus and decide on laws and ordinances. You get to represent your district in state party decisions and weigh in on who is cool and who is a douche bag.
I was proudest when we sent a resolution to Washington calling for impeachment investigation. We're the closest district to NYC to do so and became a catalyst for other towns to do the same.
So cheers on what you're doing and good luck with the third party, but look into your local Dem committee and see what's happening. We have waves of young voters joining our various anti-war and progressive caucuses and will be working hard to continue to ethically cleanse the local Dem machine in conjunction with national networks of progressive Dems doing the same in their communities. This is the non-specified "change" in Obama's sloganeering - we need to change Washington by first changing our own areas.
But HOW, right?
by
Gustav Wynn (66 articles, 44 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 305 comments)
on Thursday, October 9, 2008 at 5:29:14 PM
If you have to catagorize me, I'd have to say that I am a left libertarian - not in a socialist or statist way, but more in a Jeffersonian mindset. (And that is libertarian with a little "l", not a capital "L" Libertarian.) From what I've learned of many progressives, they too seem to want to infuse "bigger better larger" government programs. I want smaller government. Less invasive government. Less imperialistic government. Less corporate/government collusion. So therefore working from within the Democratic party goes against what I see as proper role of FedGov.
I certainly understand compromise, but Obama lost me in 2006 when he started "compromising" my basic inalienable rights - which NO elected representative has any right to do whatsoever. In doing so, this negates one's Constitutional oath: ''I, __, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..."
I also believe in accountability and the Rule of Law and, to me, there is no "compromise" of our fundamental rights. So I will not support a candidate, from within or without, that has broken that oath to which he/she SWORE to uphold. Period.
by
Tippy Canoe (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 25 comments)
on Friday, October 10, 2008 at 8:06:47 AM
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” –John Quincy Adams
Then again, I could have used either of these two "brilliant" quotes
"The great thing about America is everybody should vote." --George W. Bush, Austin, Texas, Dec. 8, 2000
"If you don't stand for anything, you don't stand for anything! If you don't stand for something, you don't stand for anything!" --George W. Bush, Bellevue Community College, Nov. 2, 2000
by
Munich (0 articles, 74 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 901 comments)
on Thursday, October 9, 2008 at 6:48:00 PM
For example isn't it better to at least get out of Iraq? (and move the troops to Afghanistan?)To redistribute Bush's tax breaks across the middle class? (Yep! Yes You Can will become "NO YOU CAN'T" because there ain't no mo $$)To immediately begin alternative energy incentivization? (Included in the above!) To restore low interest college loan subsidization? (With what funds?). To institute campaign finance reforms?(Why? I won!) These were all stated Obama aims in pre-election speeches that he has stuck to. He therefore is a better choice in a system that allows third party candidates no voice whatsoever, unfortunately.
You're absolutely right. No third party candidate will garner even a single electoral vote. How could they? Even through the primaries, alternative candidates like Kucinich were taken off the debate panels. There's no exposure and there's no money. McCain or Obama will be our next president. There will be virtually no change. The banking system will be reduced to three major banks beneath the Federal Reserve and controlled by the IMF and World Bank.
These two "candidates" are walking the same path toward the same end result. One is on the right side and the other the left. But the path is inevitably headed in one direction: corporate dominance of the planet.
by
Angelo (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 188 comments)
on Thursday, October 9, 2008 at 6:06:13 PM
If we don't vote for Obama, McCain and Palin will win. Reality is that Nadar nor McKinney will be able to get enough votes to trump either Obama or McCain. I believe after this election in which Obama or McCain will win, we should really work hard to build up the independents, we can't wait until election years to start pushing independents or third parties. There needs to more stratagizing to trump the two party system.
by
Sharon Roach (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 115 comments)
on Thursday, October 9, 2008 at 8:27:27 AM
You need to explain to me where the two candidates are different, because from what I saw during the "debates" was that they both are in agreement on pretty much everything...
George W Bush enacted, in the first 100 days, exactly what Al Gore PROMISED to enact in the first 100 days...
So when you say that McCain will win if we don't vote for Obama, that sounds so completely hollow and meaningless.
Ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 673 comments)
on Thursday, October 9, 2008 at 11:19:56 AM
No. Sharon Doesn't need to explain anything to you Steve
You just keep your peepers squeezed shut and you'll keep the same attitude. There's no doubt that there are too many similarities between Obama and McCain for this liberal, but there are SOOO many differences-- supreme court appointees, regulations, attitude towards government, women's rights, Iraq, health care-- the list really goes on and on. Anyone who says there's no difference is, well really a mystery to me. It seems so damned obvious. Why can't you see past the similarities that by voting third party you hand it to one of them and you might as well pick which one.
by
Rob Kall (858 articles, 3987 quicklinks, 343 diaries, 1821 comments)
on Thursday, October 9, 2008 at 4:10:28 PM
By trying to persuade as many people as possible that the two big Parties only offer the illusion of choice, I am doing more to promote freedom than by buying into the "lesser of two evils"
Rob, we are actually going to elect one of two guys who are arguing over how best to put out the fire that our financial house in being consumed by, by tossing gasoline or kerosene on it... At the end of the day, the house is STILL burning... We picked Kerosene because it was the lesser of the two evils...
Ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 673 comments)
on Saturday, October 11, 2008 at 12:04:43 PM
Most of these 3rd party supporters or "no vote" supporters are really Republican shills. They want you to think Obama is no different than McCain because all vote protests will ONLY help McCain and Palin get elected ..... and that would be a disaster of epic proportions.
You can tell a REAL third party supporter as soon as you ask them if they know what "instant runoff voting" is and whether they have ever volunteered any of their time to achieve "instant runoff voting". If they have not they do not really want a three party system.
by
E. Nelson (25 articles, 1 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 273 comments)
on Thursday, October 9, 2008 at 2:37:19 PM
The more I read E.Nelson's ad hominem comments (like the two posted above and elsewhere), the more it's becoming increasingly clear to me that E. Nelson might possibly be an automaton.
I wouldn't be surprised if anyone else walked away with that impression.
by
Tippy Canoe (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 25 comments)
on Thursday, October 9, 2008 at 4:07:14 PM
Don't vote for either candidate and guess what? Some one else will win. It's time to get out of this stale attitude that we have to vote for tit or tat. There are other choices in this race, like the ones that aren't allowed to show what they got because of the puppet master choice of McCain or Obama. I must say this country is blind to think that you have just these two clowns, when if we had the guts to just walk away and choose anyone else, Nader or whoever. Write in Mickey Mouse. We need change, but it will never happen because you'all can't get this one or the other out of your heads. This is exactly what the puppet master wants. Think about it.
by
Jay Timmins (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 103 comments)
on Thursday, October 9, 2008 at 5:07:02 PM
