Chuck Baldwin

Bob Barr

John McCain

Cynthia McKinney

Ralph Nader

Barack Obama

Two are favored by the corporations and the war profiteers. Two fit the mold for objective journalism that the corporate media like to lambaste we the people with.

The extra candidates---the minor candidates or those second class parties---well they make life too difficult. They make people have to consider the issues and we wouldn't want that in an election.

Elections are based solely on personality and I would much rather shoot hoops with Obama than McCain. Can McCain even shoot hoops? He is old...

If I am politically asleep, I wish to remain in this slumber for the rest of my life.

by Kevin Gosztola (302 articles, 146 quicklinks, 81 diaries, 1082 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 11:47:08 AM

  (0+)

First, Who's Chuck Baldwin? I can't find a reference to him on OEN.

Second, if you go deeper and deeper into the issues, then you must face the reality that voting for candidates who cannot win, in the main election, which is very different from the primary, you take a stand on those issues by allowing the wrong man or woman to win. In Illinois, you can afford to vote for the ideal candidate. But not in VA, FL, OH, CO, AZ, NM, PA, MN, AK, NH.

The similarities are glaring and certainly less what you and I would like in a candidate, but the differences between McCain and Obama are huge and reason to not only vote for, but support Obama. We've been down this road in 2000 and 2004. Idealism is great for setting goals and targets and for longterm planning, but you also have to face short term realities.

We need to change the laws so there are term limits, equal treatent for third parties  and something like instant runoff voting. THEN, we can have our cake and eat it.

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 12:13:09 PM

  (0+)

Indiana and Michigan.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1793 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 1:09:03 PM

  (0+)

Elections are always about defense against the worst.   Of course crooks devised the electoral process in order to preserve their power.  Give up the perpetual virginity, vote, and be an activist in countless other ways.

by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1762 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 11:50:05 AM

  (0+)

I'm insane! Stop me before I vote again!

A Zbigniew Brzezinski protege versus an old self-styled Bush clone equals what result? A vote for Bob Barr. At least in my book.

How can I bring myself to vote for either of the two major party cretins?

If Obama wanted Bush impeached, I'd vote for him. If Obama called the "war on terror" a sham, I'd vote for him. If Obama wanted a new 9/11 investigation, I'd vote for him. If Obama wanted tougher FISA laws, I'd vote for him. If Obama promised to investigate the Bush administration for war crimes, I'd vote for him. If Obama had the guts to leave a flag pin off his lapel, I'd vote for him.

That said, and since none of the above is true, Obama can kiss my lilly-white derriere. If Obama were a real candidate instead of just another Bilderberger a--hole, I'd vote for him.

Bill and Hillary and I will be casting our votes for someone else this election season, thank you. Othwerise, I'd just be voting for a kinder, gentler machine gun hand.

No thanks. I'll pass. Call me crazy.

by Sam Adams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 90 comments) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 12:21:09 PM

  (0+)

sorry, that's who you're kissing and supporting. You can put lipstick on your pig, but when you scrape away the words, the complaints, the comparisons, your vote will help McCain and put another Bush in office. I won't feel particularly good voting for Obama, but it's better than helping McCain, as you will be doing, though you choose to delude yourself otherwise.

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 12:40:47 PM

  (0+)

but you are still looking at too narrow a frame.

Here is my reply.  

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:09:29 PM

  (0+)

Each voter must decide on their objective in casting a vote this year. If the objective is to stop the fascist regime we currently suffer under, then, as a practical matter, casting a third party vote will  be at odds with that objective.

If the objective is to protest the status quo, that may be the only way a third party choice makes sense. Another option I have seen advocated, boycotting the polls in protest of tampered elections, is an option in which I can find no shred of reason.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1793 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 1:12:21 PM

  (0+)

I'm all about waking people up. I know that it takes a smack to the side of the head to wake some people

Rob, I’ll apply your thinking to the Republicans, the Democrats, Greens, Peace & Freedom, Libertarian and any other political party that seeks a seat in any election, be it city or federal.

I’m not voting for the lesser of two evils any more, so don’t tell me one thing to get my attention, then back out when you think it will lose you votes.  If you don’t have the guts to take a position and stand by it, then do me a favor – keep your mouth shut.

I was neither an Obama nor a Clinton supporter.  I never felt that Obama said much of anything substantial – he just has a wonderful way of saying it.  Yet, when it appeared that he had locked up the nomination, I was ready to support him as someone offering a glimmer of hope.

Then the comment on how he so admired Reagan.  I flinched.

Then he flipped on NAFTA.  I groaned.

Then he flipped on FISA.  Endgame.

I’ll vote third party, and if McCain wins, maybe, just maybe, the next time around, the Dems will put someone up there who isn’t in corporate pockets and who makes a stand for what he believes in.

It’s rather like the fellow who claimed to have the world’s smartest jackass.  When asked to prove it, the man picked up a 2x4 and smacked the animal across the head, with the comment, “I just have to get his attention.”

by Angelo (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 209 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 1:16:14 PM

  (0+)

"if McCain wins, maybe, just maybe, the next time around"

If McBombIran wins, there won't be a next time.

by Aurora (0 articles, 95 quicklinks, 52 diaries, 648 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 6:13:07 PM

  (0+)

"Votingwise, Are you Sane or Psychotic?"

You're not being even half-assed fair here. Come on Rob, we know you can do better than this? So similar to Bush's "my way or the torture way" or "either yer with us or your agin us" crapola. Dude, get serious. You want to be taken serious, so why this? Come on, Rob. Bottom drawer is wide open. Shove it shut, willya? 

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 1:39:55 PM

  (0+)

I am coming to believe that far lefties are going to hand this election to McCain.

Ben Franklin said that the great thing about rationalization is you can rationalize anything. I believe that those on the left who advocate against Obama are helping McCain and could help him to win. Obama has a tough fight that is anything but assured. No other candidate can beat McCain.

Obama's stands suck on a lot of issues. But I stand by my Cancer/penumonia analogy. You don't get to choose sore throat. Pick Cancer or pneumonia or you will get cancer.

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 1:54:21 PM

  (0+)

and I choose justice!

What we're now witnessing, Rob, is the edge. We're on the raft, rapidly approaching the fall. Which side of the raft do we want to be on as we go over the falls? We're headed for a fall, no doubt.  It's no longer left or right, no longer Rep or Dem. It's much much deeper than that. Push forward. Listen & learn. Time to refuse any further participation.

btw, did you read and or listen to Obama's Berlin speech? Can you too see through the rhetoric? Can you? 

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:14:09 PM

  (0+)

When you're asked "who did you vote for?", there's an implication that you voted "for" someone because you support that person's stand on issues that are important to you.  I can't vote "for" either of these candidates.  Now, you get something on the ballot that says "None Of The Above" and I'm right with you.  

by Angelo (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 209 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 5:43:19 PM

  (0+)

Neo-progressives are really just Democrats too ashamed to call themselves that.  And you are all champions of lesser-evil, short-term thinking and certainly no believers in Thomas Jefferson's views about the need for periodic revolutions by the people.  And of course you are all servants of the two-party plutocracy.  You denigrate all of us who refuse to keep voting for the two-party status quo that has given us the fake, delusional democracy we now live in.  Does it make a difference whether Obama or McCain wins?  Of course, in the short term it does.  But in the longer term all an Obama win does is sap and destroy so much of the public discontent making true, major, systemic political reforms impossible.  I must admit, having concluded that Obama is a complete sham and just another lying politician, I would get great joy seeing the obnoxious and arrogant Obama lose the freaking election!!!  I would have been impressed if from the beginning Obama would have said very publicly that he does not want to be defined and described as an African-American, but simply as an American.

by Joel S. Hirschhorn (141 articles, 50 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 546 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 7:57:33 AM

  (0+)

Instead of labeling people "neo-progressives", you should drop the label and spend more time making an argument. I've said this to you before. You spend half of your comment defining a label that no one else uses and conveniently ignore the fact that labeling people terms that they do not choose for themselves is generally regarded as rude.

You could have easily avoided this and instead concentrated yourself on making an argument.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2148 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 12:41:35 PM

  (0+)

So said Rob:

I put those people right up there with the toxic Hillaryites who hate Obama.

At this stage in the game, they're all, in my opinion, anywhere from a bit nutty to flamingly out of their minds.

Aren't those labels? And derogatory at that?

by Dave Wheeler (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:49:47 PM

  (0+)

Please address your comments to the person who did what you are talking about.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2148 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 4:06:28 PM

  (0+)

...and absolutely no plug for Gravel or Nader...

listen to what this man has to say. Listen. Learn. Refrain from reacting. Refrain.

Try to get around it and I promise, I'll nail ya to it in retrospect.

Listen & learn. Let Obama take office. Vote for Obama. But please listen.

Personally speaking, imho, the NWO wants Obama to take office. Further: he is under SUPREME protection; they NEED him in office. Don't understand? Well, you're not paying attention. 

This friendly message brought to you by a true RADICAL.  

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:48:10 PM

  (0+)

We need to put a 1) man; 2) a man of color; 3) with a Muslim connection; 4) with a non-American sounding name to head the new empire as the neocons seek to quell the unending rebellion in the Middle East.

Obama is the chosen son... whether we vote for him or not.

And - over 90% of the country will be voting on software that can be hacked without detection... so why all the hoopla over elections?  The hackers are in charge.  That party with the best hack wins.

Let's stop pretending "this time it really matters"

[spitting on floor]

by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:47:16 PM

  (0+)

Those who say there is no difference are fools. Yes, a Gore Presidency would have been exactly like Bush. B--s--t.

The Kevin-Ron Paul-Nader argument is specious. It ignores completely the ethos and historical development of the culture, is sanctimoniously purest, and ignores the relationship between leadership, the populace, and historical currents and events in shaping policy.

Yes I would love to do away with Corporate Capitalist greed tomorrow but as a student of history, I understand the nature of process.

Let me ask any of you personally. Ever have a deeply entrenched bad habit or addiction? Get over it in a day?

We're back in the year I was born, 1947 (last year a black was officially lynched in the US-the Military was just recently desegregated, women's place was in the home, racial intermarriage is banned and a crime in over 35 states. Oh, and the Democrats rule the South where blacks can;t get a sniff of voting-this is all for starters) and a person comes from the future and says, in 2008 a black man will win the Democratic nomination and be the *favorite* to be elected, and he beat a WOMAN to get there. Blacks and whites intermarry easily, women compete on a par with men in sports, and they actually have JOBS and CAREERS in influential places and have flooded the work force, and the MILITARY.  Oh, and its now not illegal in most of the country to have sex besides the Missionary position. Etc, etc.

We have a history here. A lot of it is real bad shadow, real bad. But if you look at all the nations on Earth, those who have had positions of power on the world stage have always had problems with greed and corruption.

We are coming out of a horrific right wing period that was a counter reaction to the 60's and early 70's imprinted primarily by Reagan. Its so easy to be a privledged middle class white and complain about the imperfection and lack of purity of the candidates.

A friend of mine, a Buddhist living in Vermont pointed out to that America is a lot more than Ken Kaplan's place. When 44% thought Saddam was involved in 9/11 ,12% still think Obama is a Muslim, I think asking for deep reductions in the Military when most folks are still spooked about Terrorism ain't gonna fly.

Look, I was pissed at the FISA capitulation, Obama's Iran policy stinks and is one of his weakest points, and I am concerned that Afghanistan could become a quagmire. But he is exceptionally bright, has a tremendous personal organizing history, and I think is in tune with the broader issues that are on the table right now.

LIKE SAVING HUMANITY.

McCain will sink us for sure because he is an idiot and is bought and sold so far beyond Obama it isn't funny.

Are you aware of the concept of "political capital" and how it must be cultivated? Right now I read an article that Obama is considering prosecution of the Bush gang but it would have to wait until a second term.

Americans are a hugely brainwashed people. It is going to take some time to deprogram them. Sorry it doesn't fit your timeline for Utopia.

When was the last (or any)  truly progessive President? Hmmmm. Don't say Carter, wrong guess. Maybe F. Roosevelt. He campaigned as a conservative, was called a "chameleon" and was hated by right and left. (same arguments against him as from you-sell out) So if he can't fit your bill, maybe Teddy, except for the Bush like doctrine in the Phillipines and elsewhere.  Lincoln was a centrist and was hated by the abolitionists for most of the war.

Don't you get it? THEY DON"T EXIST.

Sorry, gang, this is what you've got. I admire your conviction. I feel much the same way issue wise but you're about 25-50 years ahead of the time intellectually. And I think pressure from activists will be important.

Look Obama could be a Democratic Reagan and rearrange the landscape or another Lyndon Johnson. But I know what McCain is and its four more years of Bush. If you believe there is no difference for America, for the world, for humanity between Obama and McCain, then you have far less intelligence and much too much self righteous pride for me.

Don't worry Rob. 2000 taught people a very hard lesson. There will not be the movement among the left this time as there was for Nader. The fire burned too much. Too many people got hurt and the disaster was apparent for all to see. Want more? Keep it up.

Ken Kaplan

by kenstory (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 3:42:58 PM

  (0+)

1)-Sam Adams makes sense. My PAG meet every other Thursday and most of them, once strong Obama vs Hillary guys are turning away. I agree with Sam, some of what he said are the same discontented thoughts I've had.

2)-What poll, I found no poll? AM I blind or what?

3)-I didn't understand why you thought this would lose you voters?

4)-I was initially intrigued w/Obama, but his once sharp answers to my emails, became more and more as moronic as the Donna Braziles lame tenure, lame, dumb crew of 2000-2004. Losers all. There are better political minds by far writing here on OEN than are employed in DC by the Dems. Maybe they should outbid the Repubs and hire Rove, because they have picked since Clinton, the lamest, dumbest, hangers on, on the planet. I may not, vote as I did once before when Dukakis and Bush ran for president, or I may write in Mickey Mouse or Pee Wee Herman, or my avocado plant, "Chile". I'm just saying, that I don't know what to vote for anymore, so why not take a gamble? Maybe that will change the sort of candidates we get and those who strategize for them?) Rob why don't you run on a write in campaign, I'll vote for you. Or maybe I will choose the most gorgeous model I have used and write her in in November girl. Besides I have doubts there will even be an election

I will never again vote for anyone who lies around their true beliefs and I no longer trust Obama. Since the end of the Primary seson he is a different guy. Same as the others. He did a 180, Turnabout, and so have I. Maybe at the last second if he changes I might but he even said, twice now, he would rehire Blackwater! What the Hell is that? That's big oil speaking!
Would John Adams. or Jefferson or FDR do that? I doubt it, I know it, they would not. I have had it with the BSers. Let the 167 million with IQ's under 100 vote for the Shadow, Closet, Bilderbergers, I won't ever again.

by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 4:40:02 PM

  (0+)

ROBS RIGHT-WE HAVE A DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY IN CONGRESS AND UNLESS WE GET A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT IN -THE VETO POWER WILL NOT BE ADRESSED AND NOTHING WILL GET DONE. BY THE WAY IF ANYBODY OUT THERE DOESNT KNOW THAT OBAMA IS PLAYING POLITICS,BEING FLUID AND BENDING WITH THE BREEZES, YA NEVER REALY KNEW HIM . HE HAS TO FOR NOW TO WIDEN HIS BASE  BUT WHEN HE GETS IN I THINK YOU WILL SEE SOME INCREDIBLE THINGS FOR THE BETTER HAPPEN RIGHT OFF THE BAT--------OR WE ARE SCREWED-WE FACE SOME VERY VERY HEAVY THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED -THAT OUR SITTING PRESIDENT [CRIMINAL] FAILED TO ADDRESS HONESTLY----AND THAT IS WHAT IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO -WHO IS HONEST??---- BEING AN INDEPENDENT I BELIEVE ITS --OBAMA-----[ I KNOW I WAS BEING WAY TO KIND ABOUT THE PREZZ]

by TRADESMAN (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 335 comments [40 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 5:17:48 PM

  (0+)

When the US was about to invade Iraq, the rest of the world tried to tell them something.  The US did not listen.

Now, there is another choice, and again the rest of world have given their vote.   Will this time be any different?

On the one side, a psychopathic, murderous regime.  Think "Bomb, bomb, bomb, Bomb, bomb Iran" at a press conference, in response to a question on policy.

On the other,  someone who has overcome the most extraordinary odds to be there today and provide an alternative.

For many, it would be "No contest".

by Aurora (0 articles, 95 quicklinks, 52 diaries, 648 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 5:22:17 PM

  (0+)

Is Obama truly an alternative? 

I snipped a fragment from one of Rob’s sentences: “if you go deeper and deeper into the issues, then you must face the reality that.…”

If you really go deeper, imho, it might be noted that electing Obama will change not one bit of the globalist agenda except to shift, perhaps, towards some version of the previous ‘velvet glove’ Empire machinations.… that would be the Baker/Brzezinski approach to global war. But given Obama’s comments about the Middle East and Central Asia.… even that possibility seems doubtful. In any case, the hegemonic behaviors will continue and expand. Many people will be ‘relieved’ with an Obama... clinging to the belief ( in escape from denial and hopelessness) that Obama will bring change. And he will, I bet, but it will not be the change expected. The agenda will continue, now having defused some of the anger, some of the despair. Thus the flash point of any currently growing public anger and awareness will be snuffed out. And the pot’s temperature will be reduced from the stove’s high temperature back to medium. But we will still be boiled just as surely. 

So, in an odd way, this argues somewhat that the only hope of creating a catalyst to lead to dramatic change is to not elect Obama. 

The much greater awareness of the actual state of affairs in the world should be credited to Bush and his neocon cabal. They have been so obvious in their brutality and avarice that many folks couldn’t help but notice. In contrast, even though significant NWO actions were taken by Clinton we missed seeing them. A priori (to me at least), Obama runs in the same polluted river. But in this new world, subtle is bad. Obviousness is good. If you want to wake people up.

Oh well, these are just musings. Maybe an Obama victory will provide more time for dissenters to make more inroads (I can’t believe he will actually do anything to damage or thwart the NWO’s objectives.) Unfortunately, many people will be mislead and optimistic just to get rid of BushCo. But BushCo. was never the ‘real’ problem. Simply the latest and most obvious incarnation of the disease infiltrating across human society and the world. Too many negative, mucky, diseased rivers of activity are beginning to merge. Orwell’s world is quickly becoming our reality. 

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 7:24:13 PM

  (0+)

Lesser of two evils, blah, blah, blah ... only choice, blah, blah, blah ... voting for can't wins ... blah, blah, blah ... it's all a farce!

Jerome R. Corsi just released a book, Obamanation, that is going to destroy Obama and hand the election to McCain. It's been a set-up from the start.

For those of you still caught in that fool's paradigm of "liberal" vs "conservative", "blue" vs "red", or those that think that they're "independent" yet still wind-up voting for one of the two corporate whore candidates your world is about to come crashing down around you.

Folks, we don't have a country. We have land that is being stripped of it's resources, bleed of it's people and robbed of every penny by power elites that gave us no choice and only an illusion of freedom.

We don't need another phony election - we need a god-damn revolution! And anyone that still thinks we can fix this by working within a system that is corrupted to it's core is beyond a fool.

Here's what's going to happen. Obama is far from a Saint, he's just as corrupt as anyone whom the power-elite would allow to be presented as their representative. There's ton's of dirt that is about to be unleashed on him and while he's defending himself the AG's that Rove put into place, along with e-voting machines and dirty tricks will be enough to shovel the manure of a McCain presidency at us and between the disappointment and rage this will fuel and all the fools that fell for this Dog & Pony Show are going to be further divided as we sink into a fascist Hell, which will allow Martial Law to be declared and an acceleration of our Police State can begin in earnest. We'll descend into a permanent war state where the only way to eat will be to kill and Orwell will truly be rolling in his grave by this time next year. I can only pray I'm wrong, but I'd wager beans against gold I'm not.

It's almost over and I'm sorry to see it end this way. But far too many people still think this system works. They think, "Gee, if we can only get a foothold ...", but that foothold too is an illusion, the whole God-damn thing is an illusion and until a majority of people come to realize that and we surround Bohemia Grove, or the next Bilderberg meeting and jail everyone of the bastards in those places we'll always be slaves.

So do your silly polls and give all your rational statements as to why we should be voting for a man that is nothing more than a hired huckster for those that couldn't care less about us. I hope it makes you think you're making a difference and doing your part - it won't - and you're a fool to think it will.

This is not the time for rationalizing the irrational and taking whatever they give us, this is a time when we should be looking to change things beyond perimeters that others have set. This is a time when we should be placing sledge-hammers to those corrupted voting machines instead of placing votes, that we can only pray will get counted for candidates that have absolutely zero interest in us other that how fast we can die for their next war, or from their poisoned food, water and vaccines.

They're killing us and people nuance the killers, it's just utterly heart-breaking to see how the propaganda machine can still fool so many otherwise bright people.

Don't you people realize that we can't count on anything from people that are murdering us other than more murder? Where were you on September 11, 2001? If Obama wasn't one of the fold who killed 3,000 people that day, than why isn't he calling for a new investigation? If he's so God-damn brilliant, than why can't he see what any imbecile can see?

I can give you an answer to those questions - I already have ...

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 7:39:13 PM

  (0+)

GOOD WORK! BUT, You should have written this as an artiIcle and linked it to and from your comment.

by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 10:03:09 PM

  (0+)

All my disgust with Rob's article and views was greatly offset by reading your comments (and many other comments).

I used to feel that OEN was a terrific place for intelligent, politically smart dissidents seeking major political reforms, but all too often it seems like just another venue for Democrats masquerading as progressives.

by Joel S. Hirschhorn (141 articles, 50 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 546 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 8:06:17 AM

  (0+)

I always point back to the German elections of July 1932 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_election,_July_1932 as my prime example of what happens when various left groups quarrel amongst themselves as to who is the most pristeen and perfect candidate. If the Communist Party, German Democratic Party and Bavarian People's Party had united behind the Social Democrats, who had the largest base of support, they defeat the Nazis and Hitler 40% to 37% and we all know what that would have meant.

Yes folks, people on the left in Germany from the center left Bavarian People's Party folks to the Social Democrats and the Communists were arguing just as many of us have argued for the past 9 or so years since Nader announced his candidacy in the 2000 elections, who is the best person to carry the banner of the left against the rising tide of fascism and national socialism.

Someone else in this thread said that, quite frankly, elections often come down to preventing the worst choice from coming to power. July 1932 shows why that is a matter of absolute urgency in EVERY election. Just before that election, Leon Trotsky had this to say:

It is necessary to show by deeds a complete readiness to make a bloc with the Social Democrats against the fascists in all cases in which they will accept a bloc. To say to the Social Democratic workers: "Cast your leaders aside and join our "nonparty" united front" means to add just one more hollow phrase to a thousand others. We must understand how to tear the workers away from their leaders in reality. But reality today is-the struggle against fascism. There are and doubtless will be Social Democratic workers who are prepared to fight hand in hand with the Communist workers against the fascists, regardless of the desires or even against the desires of the Social Democratic organizations.

2008 is another such time, another such year. Bush has pushed this country so far to the fascist right and towards totalitarianism that we cannot afford going one more inch in that direction. If that isnt bad enough, if we have another Republican administration, we will almost certainly go to war with Iran and there is no telling where that conflict would end.

None of us can afford to play favorites with which brand of liberalism, progressivism or leftism should be chosen.

Trotsky, in the above quoted document, also said this:

The question as to which one of them is the "lesser evil" has no sense, for the system we are fighting against needs all these elements. But these elements are momentarily involved in conflicts with one another and the party of the proletariat must take advantage of these conflicts in the interest of the revolution.

There are seven keys in the musical scale. The question as to which of these keys is "better" -- do, re, or sol -- is a nonsensical question. But the musician must know when to strike and what keys to strike. The abstract question of who is the lesser evil -- Bruening or Hitler -- is just as nonsensical. It is necessary to know which of these keys to strike. Is that clear? For the feebleminded let us cite another example. When one of my enemies sets before me small daily portions of poison and the second, on the other hand, is about to shoot straight at me, then I will first knock the revolver out of the hand of my second enemy, for this gives me an opportunity to get rid of my first enemy. But that does not at all mean that the poison is a "lesser evil" in comparison with the revolver.

The misfortune consists precisely of the fact that the leaders of the German Communist Party have placed themselves on the same ground as the Social Democracy, only with inverted prefixes: the Social Democracy votes for Bruening, recognizing in him the lesser evil. The Communists, on the other hand, who refuse to trust either Braun or Bruening in any way (and that is absolutely the right way to act), go into the streets to support Hitler's referendum, that is, the attempt of the fascists to overthrow Bruening.

But by this they themselves have recognized in Hitler the lesser evil, for the victory of the referendum would not have brought the proletariat into power, but Hitler. To be sure, it is painful to have to argue over such ABC questions. It is sad, very sad indeed, when musicians like Remmele, instead of distinguishing between the keys, stamp with their boots on the keyboard.

---------------------------------

Now, as most of you know, I am not a Communist or even a Socialist. But I recognize wisdom from someone who is talking about uniting against a common enemy.

The various left groups can quibble about who is best after we turn back what has happened over 30 of the last 40 years. Trotsky as much as said that the Social Democrats were the enemy of the Communists, but they were not nearly the enemy that the Nazis were.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2148 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 8:45:10 PM

  (0+)

all of us, "left", "right", "communist", "capitalist", "national socialist" and whatever "ist", or "ism" you can dream-up is funded and controlled by the same power-elites that have been behind most of this worlds strife for the past several centuries.

The gig is up. I'm not getting fooled by this game again and neither should anyone else. All this talk of "change" - make it yourself because I can promise you this the only "change" you're going to get from either of the two corporate whore candidates is for the worst.

Call me a dreamer, but I'd rather live and die with my dream than the nightmare of living a lie.

I'm still betting Obama won't make it. And it's not because the splintered left couldn't pull together behind him, it's because the game is rigged. Obama is no more or less a patsy than Lee Harvey Oswald or any of the other dupes for the power-elite to set-up and smack down. Obama is nothing more than a side-show attraction to the real action going on behind the scenes at places like Bohemia Grove, Jekyll Island, the G-8, or the next Bilderberg meeting. We start talking about attacking those criminals, I'm there, otherwise count me out - I don't parade with fools.

You want a fair election? Good. Think back to whom was your first choice, right it down on a piece of paper, walk into your polling place slam it on the table and tell them they can stick their e-voting machine where the sun doesn't shine and demand your vote be counted.

Everything else is a waste of time playing a fool in a fools game.

There are candidates running who do speak to the people's concerns - and neither of them is Obama nor McCain, and this isn't 1933 no matter the similarities.

It's true that history repeats itself, but not always identically, otherwise there would be absolutely zero progress or evolution. It's time for us to break from tradition instead of making the same mistakes and enter a new age with new thinking, because if we don't get it right this time I sincerely believe there won't be a history in the future we'll be around to repeat.

Where do you finally draw the line? Apparently not at 3,000 murdered people, nor the estimated 1,300,000 murdered since. So are we to hold our noses as we place our phantom votes for someone that also excuses the murder of millions? Is this the company I'm suppose to keep?

You go ahead and do that.

Me - I'm making my stand, and even if it lose I won't lose as much as you apparently already have.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 11:44:45 PM

  (0+)

Exactly....playing in the rigged game is never going to result in the outcome you desire.

Obama may be the lesser of two evils, but he is still backed by the same group of behind the scenes players that got us where we are now...on the edge of a cliff, morally and financially, about to have the velvet gloves come off of all the fascist wannabes as they consolidate power. I live in a state that has all of three electors (ND) and so will still cast my vote for who I really want (Paul) and watch it all unfold  in slow motion after that. God help us all.

by Brad Griffeth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 138 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 5:36:49 AM

  (0+)

You should re-read the quotes by Trotsky in my comments.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2148 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 6:25:35 AM

  (0+)

with the excerpt I quoted from Trotsky. You should reread it.

Trotsky also believed that the German Social Democrats were part of the same ultimate power elite machine as the Nazis. That did not mean he believed we should sit idly by while the Nazis and Hitler gained power. He thought it was absolutely necessary to align with the Social Democrats to prevent that from happening.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2148 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 6:18:08 AM

  (0+)

Are things similar as they were in 1933 Germany? Yes. And look what happened. And being that Trotsky was saying that both parties were essentially the same one can assume than that the outcome would have been essentially the same, so what you're proposing here is a Hitler by any other name. Obama=McCain=Hitler - what difference does it make? If the powers behind all the front men are the same why play their game? Why not go after the people behind the curtain? Why not tear down the curtain?

You using history as your guide refuse to learn from it yourself. You want to work within the system that was set-up by the very powers that are behind both candidates using the same rules to foster the same sorry-ass policies that got us into this mess to begin with in a vain hope that by putting another pig in office we'll somehow be able turn this swine into a prince. Good luck with that. History surely again will repeat itself.

We've on our death bed. There won't be another time. Things will get a lot worse before they get better, if they ever do. And if indeed we are on our death-bed I'm making my moral declaration to not go out on my knees to those that put us there.

There was a quote from one of the Bush aids about two or three years into his dictatorship stating that, "... we (they) make up reality ...", it might be the only thing I agree with coming from this administration. We need to make up a new reality, not one dictated to us by those that would kill us either by a hammer or a gun, but we need to pick-up a hammer or gun and aim it at those that are perpetrating this fraud and end this charade - not participate in it!

Trotsky's dead and so should be near all the analogies relating to that time other than we shouldn't make the same mistake by playing the power-masters game yet again. We should be making a new game, with new rules and the power-elites don't get to play - they should be put in a deep dark hole.

Will any of this happen? I have grave doubts. There are just too many people that still want to play it safe. There is no safe play anymore. There is no gaming a system that has totally gamed us. But people such as yourself, and Rob and the many others that have been caught-up in this game for way too long just can't seem to grasp that you can't keep on doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results, which is the classic example of insanity. Or perhaps you just don't have the courage to go up against people that have murdered 3,000 people on our soil in broad day-light and another estimated 1,300,000 more. Because that is in the end what we're up against. And that's where your similarity ends. Hitler only burned down one building and murdered one person to achieve his objective, but these bastards went way beyond that and people of your ilk want to give them a pass.

You'll excuse me if I pass on that. Until I hear Obama say we're going open a full investigation into these murders and take it where ever it goes, he's just another sock-puppet for the power-elites and you and your ilk are simply enablers to mass murders. No nuance. Mass murders don't that from me. I'm sick of playing this God-damn game! I'm sick of people that for whatever reason are refusing to take a stand. I'm sick of people such as yourself, Obama, McCain, Hitler, and I'm especially sick of those power-elites who hide behind it all and laugh at the fools who continue to fall for their antics. To Hell with you all.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 9:16:42 AM

  (0+)

what Trotsky suggested and the result was the Third Reich.

Again, what was it you said I didnt get?

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2148 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 12:43:21 PM

  (0+)

Steven,

German Communists. Would not do what.... what? 

Do you know one? Have you any clue what you're referring to here?

Methinks you google a bit too much and know not what you are saying. 

Take today's DKP e.g. They stand as solid as they stood many decades ago. No budging, no comprimise, no coalitions, no adapting. You may be able to guess why. Today, Die Linke have a much larger audience than the DKP. Die Linke have room to comprimise and to join coalitions if need be with the Die Grüne, and the SPD. The SPD, social Demoracts. Joining hands with them is like bending over backwards to gain power. Would the DKP ever do that? No. Hell no. Not today and not back in the day when they were (the very same party) called the KPD. You, Steven, know nothing about this segment. Don't touch it. Google cannot help you as the web is not riddled with this sort of info. Ya kinda have to have either been there or be there. 

The corelation being, you're barking up a tree of idealists. Idealist Patriots. American Patriots who will not back down and will not bend over to be reamed again and again without REAL protest and REAL CHANGE. Changes in the right direction. This trait is not in any way limited to the KDP, the DKP or any other group of idealists. Yes, American Patriots are Idealists. Be careful, mate. Don't want you to get burnt. 

google away and good luck! 

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 2:36:41 PM

  (0+)

and researching. By that I conclude that you dont do those things.

Good to know.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2148 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 4:09:05 PM

  (0+)

Beyond political parties, both communists and national socialist were funded by the same principles, as are capitalists and on and on.

My point is focusing on parties is a waste of time when all the major parties are controlled by the same power-elites. Wasting our time on which party does what and which candidate means this or that when all the strings run back to the same controlling forces is dancing on the outer rim of the vortex.

If we really want to finally have a truly people's government we have tear the power-elites down, bust-up the monopolies they have over resources, land, energy, media and money and never allow any group of people to be able to obtain this kind of power again.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 4:57:57 PM

  (0+)

but lets wait til the elections over and then make the supreme decision

by TRADESMAN (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 335 comments [40 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 7:44:24 PM

  (0+)

We're not making the decisions. Any number of things could happen to slam us into a police state at breakneck speed and although I don't believe they'd cancel elections, being that either of these swine get to become POTUS their crimes will be safely concealed, but neither would any of their plans be throttled either.

And just the word "wait" when we're already so far behind grates me. But patience has never been one of my virtues. No - no more waiting, as a matter of fact this fight should have started years ago. And indeed it has by far better people than me who have a lot more at stake.

I want answers yesterday. I want to know who did 9/11. Because I sincerely believe we find those bastards and 99% of all our problems would vanish, and I don't see them waiting. I see them busting butt 24/7 trying to in-plant their New World Order on us before anybody or thing we have left of a justice system catches-up with them.

Waiting to see what they do next is not an option I'll entertain.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 6, 2008 at 12:11:26 AM

  (0+)

Excellent arguments about why government & democracy don't work. The problem is you seem to still entertain the fantasy that government can be made to work somehow. The proper conclusion is that coercive government doesn't work & needs to be done away with.

A proper way to organize society is with entirely voluntary institutions that can be freely chosen & rejected, i.e. anarcho-capitalism. Sometimes called market anarchism.

by Darren Wolfe (15 articles, 402 quicklinks, 141 diaries, 1032 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 8:54:48 AM

  (0+)

wow, really, so many smart people can make such bad decisions. If you are not going to vote go live in a country where you don't get a say anyhow and quit complaining about problems with this country. If you really do care you have got to make it a point to stand by the candidate that has the closest views and policies that you take to heart, that also stands a chance to win. A loser is a loser no matter how many votes they get, and even though supporting a third party candidtate is good to break the two party system this is to important an election to get on your high horses and decide you and Obama are only cool on 50 or 60% of the issues, he is definitely better then allowing someone into office that is against most progressive and liberal ideas( which are currently the ideas of most americans I talk to).

Don't forget that the past has shown that Obama has made good decisions and votes.  Maybe he is just playing politics with a few of his past ones trying to get some more votes on bills that it seemed most americans wanted anyhow, but when it comes down to it im sure he has the country's best interest at heart.

by Ben Kall (1 articles, 16 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 35 comments) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 8:49:55 PM

  (0+)

The first thing I would do is not use red as a background. very hard to read. the second is, if a person "plays politics: would you trust him with your money, your wife, your nation, your life. I wrote an article here just before I became cool toward the Obama campaign which was the content a letter I wrote to Obama in reply to his people wanting me to host a party inviting all of my friends, It contained a list of the things I expected from him if elected, he never replied to the list. Always before he ran he replied in detail answering every question. I do not like McCain one bit and will not vote for him, or for Nader. But I am as yet uncertain about voting for Obama. I would NOT marry a girl I liked but was not totally dedicated to. I am unhappy with his turnabout. He has not answered my questions if he will try to rescind The Patriot act, the Military commissions act of 2006, the bankruptcy act, FISA-which he voted for, he voted for $161.8 Billion for the war and no-bid contractors, he says he is wary of Iran, he wants to mount the attack on Afghanistan, he wants to retain Blackwater, he has not said a word about impeachment, or about going for an indictment of Bush/Cheney, he has not said word one about an investigation of oil prices, I will not vote for McCain, but this reminds me too much of the Dukakis/Bush I campaign, two people I did not like very much. He has said little about the losers from the lame 2000-2004 campaign he has recently hired. Just what is it about him that is so much different from what we've had from every Republican and several Democrats in the last half century? I voted for Johnson and regretted it to this day because of Viet Nam You know the saying, "They said if I voted for Goldwater there would be a war in Viet Nam, I did and there was..." But we had the war nonetheless. Show me the issues. what is Obama offering now since the primary? A backslide. I what a person who will do a new FDR, not a slightly milder version of Bush. And look at all the lame new Democrats who are voting with Bush more than with what we the people want. they need to be shown we are not diddle brains, like them. And what about both sides of the aisle making a profit of $206 Million (up from $196 million) on defense and oil stocks? I was in the service in the early days and a guy I voted for, a democrat put me there and murdered a million people and 54,000 American Gi's. No more. JFK asked me as a kid in college to work for him. He was staying out of Viet Nam except for a few advisors. So, the Bilderbergers-types killed him to sell arms to Johnson. That won't happen again on my watch for someone I voted for. I'd rather vote for Mickey Mouse. Let Obama repudiate everything these idiots stand for and I will vote for him. but he is embracing much of Bush doctrine.

by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 10:28:34 PM

  (0+)

"even though supporting a third party candidate is good to break the two party system this is too important an election to get on your high horses and decide you and Obama are only cool on 50 or 60% of the issues" Really well said, imo.

by Aurora (0 articles, 95 quicklinks, 52 diaries, 648 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 11:41:42 PM

  (0+)

He's done the most homework, thought the deepest, and if nothing else, convinced me.

Get Obama in the door, then do whatever it takes to prop him up. 

The latter part is where we typically fail, and it may well be an impossible task, as any damn fool can readily see.  But the choice is a simple one: fight or die. 

And given that you're gonna die anyway, the real choice is die fighting, or just let them bury you.  

Lastly, if enough humans actually fight, they just might win. God knows there's enough like-minded people around the planet. 

by Daniel Geery (26 articles, 95 quicklinks, 126 diaries, 912 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:40:11 PM

  (0+)

Whatever else, do not give in to a sense of hopelessness or helplessness,  for that is an illness in itself.   Jerry Mazza has written about it here, in his "America's Learned Helplessness". 

Excerpt:
"Just think of Dennis Kucinich. He is the toughest, truest, gutsiest politician in America. He bucked the Iraq war. He's brought articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney. He is surviving an attempt to unseat him from his Ohio seat in Congress. His beloved younger brother died suddenly in the middle of all this. He is short and somewhat homely looking, though he has an incredibly beautiful, younger wife.

"And what does the guy do? Succumb to the pain? No, he bounces back...

"This is your garden, baby. Don't let anybody put you in a box or a cage and figure you're not going to leap back out. "
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3572.shtml 

by Aurora (0 articles, 95 quicklinks, 52 diaries, 648 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 11:21:54 PM

  (0+)

Some of us like Pof. Emeritus Peter Bagnolo, richard, Mr. M and me are a little tired of the false dichotomy offered by the two party system. I am neither on the left nor the right. So I really don't have a dog in this fight. My presidential voting record is as follows.

1988 - G.H.W. Bush

1992 - Bill Clinton

1996 - Bob Dole

2000 - John McCain (write-in)

2004 - John McCain (write-in)

So you see politically speaking I'm all over the map. I'm a consumate swing voter. Plus I have a degree in political science, which makes me more than just a casual observer of politics. And I'm now in a phase of my life which I call post-political. I have a knack for seeing through political spin and outright B.S. My real views, though I don't always choose to express them, are very similar to those of Mr. M, and I'm glad to see he's jumped all over this thread. (Though I state for the record that I don't advocate a revolution in this country.)

My point is that some of us aren't swayed by the "lesser of two evils" approach because we see evil and complicity rampant in both major political parties. If Hillary Clinton had won the primary elections, Rob Kall would be insisting she's the lesser of two evils although I and many others view her as one of the most ethically challenged persons on the planet. 

I'm not saying this because I am a former supporter of McCain's. He's undergone a metamorphosis into something completely different from the centrist maverick he once was, although I give him credit for being right about the surge in Iraq. Apart from that I give him credit for nothing, which is about what Obama deserves at this point, too. On impeachment, FISA, the Military Commissions Act, prosecuting the Bush Admin., etc., Obama is AWOL. His only real positive attribute is his desire for diplomacy with Iran. That's about it.  

Is he really the lesser of two evils, or just evil in a kinder, gentler package? That's the dilemma some of us wrestle with, and some of us see a third party vote as a matter of principle, throw-away protest vote that it may be.  I'll probably be going that route in the fall, and I live in Ohio, ONE OF THE BIGGEST SWING STATES ON THE PLANET.

Deal with it. I can't live by your rules, man. 

by Sam Adams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 90 comments) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 2:59:07 AM

  (0+)

My Grand Parents and Parents were FDR Progressives. I am driven by my loyalty only to my soul and its proper disposition. We all have weaknesses and imperfections, but I am not again going to be sucked in. Obama will now probably not be killed by the MMOAIC (Military Medical Oil Arms Industrial Complex) because he is biting the hook of where the money originates. So, they may not even fix the election, because the Temptation in The Wilderness that Jesus rejected, Obama just bought. Maybe he will change his mind but he has surrounded himself with too many of those whose souls have already been sold-cheap. Truly all we can do is pray he has a conscience reality check. Let me put it this way and I will, would you vote for McCain if he was a Dem, or Obama if he was a Repub? End of story.

by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 8:23:38 AM

  (0+)

I'm not advocating a "hot" revolution, although I can't help but believe it would escalate to that. (Those that have murdered to get into power are not going to simply give-up that power because the people demand it.) What I would like to see is a revolution that starts at the voting booth and brings us back to the core principles of our Constitution.

The revolution I'm  advocating would be one where we reject the rigged 2-party system, of delegates, Electoral College and e-voting machines. I'd like to see one-person-one-vote and vote for the person we felt most represents us, not ones shoved down our throats. If enough people refused to vote on machines that are inherently corrupt and wrote-in their choice and demand it be countered publicly, audited and filmed we'd have the revolution I'm wanting.

It's ludicrous that people call our system "a model of democracy". It just goes to show how completely brainwashed most are. We have one of the weakest of democracies and the power-elites have been gaming it to the point that it is only a representative government in name only.

Will what I'm wanting happen? I seriously doubt it. Unless we all turn-off our TV's, take sledge-hammers to e-voting machines and vote for those that we originally wished to have as our representatives the masses will continue to be pray for those that feed off them, and there simply are not enough people aware enough, or with the courage to break out of their comfort zone to do this. We're a nation of sheep. People continue to believe that things will take care of themselves because that's what they've been told, it's what makes is easy (for now) and it's "safe" (for now), but come tomorrow they'll find themselves stripped and heading for the gas chambers and they'll wonder how it all was allowed to go so wrong.

And there is one other aspect of a revolution I'd like to see - accountability for the murders of 9/11. Because if we can find them I sincerely believe 99% of all our problems would be taken care of. But again, most can't or won't face this truth. I have witnessed otherwise brilliant people cower in denial at the very thought that 9/11 was an inside job. What hope have we if we allow this crime to go unpunished? What chance do we have of a fair election when we can't even investigate the largest crime ever committed on our soil? What does it say about us as a people and a nation? It's hidden in plain sight and so many simply refuse to look.

I'm a "Truther". And as such you wake-up every day with that being prominent in my mind. Once you become convinced that there are those in power who will go so far as to murder 3,000 people in broad day-light and come to grips with the magnitude of that, you realize that all else is just window-dressing, our elections, our lives, everything shows itself to be the farce that it is until we demand that those whom committed this crime be brought to justice. It is the dominating factor. It's where I draw my line. Not just with candidates, but with everyone. It's where my choice for president begins and ends. It's how I pick who I'm going to trust. If anyone can't see 9/11 for the crime it is I can't trust them to see other things that are in plain sight.

The people behind 9/11 are the same people behind both Obama and McCain, and as such I reject both of them and the system that forces them as the only two choices we have. A vote for either of them is to reject seeking justice for those murdered on 9/11 and I just can't get past that, and I wonder how anyone can.

People have to realize that the killing isn't going to stop because they ignore those that have killed before. We place killers in office you shouldn't be surprised when they kill again, only next time on a larger scale. We let them get away with 9/11, I can absolutely guarantee you that killing will go on and on in a much greater scale, and it will be the enablers and cowards that will go first. But than, they're already dead.

So, what do we have to lose even if it does escalate to a "hot" revolution? We'll lose nothing that we haven't already lost.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 11:06:22 AM

  (0+)

My choice will be based on what things are and can be, realistically, and not what I would like them to be in my dreamworld.

In particular, I will base my vote on the bad things that are likely to happen if McCain is elected, and will not happen, or are least likely to happen if Obama is elected.

If the old geezer is elected, that pretty much guarantees an attack against Iran, messing up the Middle East situation almost beyond repair, increasing hatred against the US and possibly the risk of terrorist attacks. And the chances of a significant troop withdrawal in Iraq will be slim, whereas they ought to be a tad better with Obama, even if he has to act tough to reassure the military/industrial complex.

Here is one good reason to vote Obama: by getting Obama elected, WE WILL SAVE THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT LIVES, both American and Middle Eastern--plus the fact that McCain will follow the same disastrous economic policies that brought us this depression in the first place, will continue to dismantle social security, trample the  Bill of Rights, etc.

We have the choice between a full fledged fascistoid politician and an ordinary center right politician; there is a big difference here,  the same difference  as between living in the US under Clinton, as corrupt as he could be, and going to the dogs under Bush--anybody who has known both can tell which option is more liveable.

Nobody in their right mind can doubt that: we would not be in as bad a mess  if an average Dem like Gore had been elected. So my very first priority in the coming election is to break the hold of the wingnuts over this country, put an end to the neocon coup that took place in Florida in 2000, and return to a regular state of corrupt political affairs in a capitalist democracy.

That may not be  a very exciting prospect, but it so happens that in politics, the lesser of two evils is generally the only choice available, the only choice that will impact reality. Voting Barr, Nader etc.  will give you a thrill, a moment of personal satisfaction, but in terms of who gets to live in the White House, you might as well flush your ballot down the toilet.

If you are reality based, it boils down to this: either you vote for what/who you want but you won't get it, or you accept to vote for not quite what you want in order to get it.

by francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 385 comments) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 6:32:36 AM

  (0+)

Rob,

You embarrass yourself with a poll like that. Talk about the looney left! Get real, who is going to degrade themselves by saying they're insane in your poll?

Anyway, Chuck Baldwin is the Constitution Party Prez candidate. 

Moving right along, the Rs & Ds play a shell game by expanding different aspects of government power when they take office without rolling back the powers the other party extended & which they railed against. The bottom line is that they sound different but the 2 big parties do basically the same things when in office & never implement serious reform.

As Bill Clinton's mentor, Carroll Quigley put it:

 "The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies."

So basically a vote for a big party candidate is saying that you like the system just the way it is. (Which is bad & getting worse.) Now, what could  be crazier than that?

by Darren Wolfe (15 articles, 402 quicklinks, 141 diaries, 1032 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 6:57:02 AM

  (0+)

So basically a vote for a big party candidate is saying that you like the system just the way it is. (Which is bad & getting worse.) Now, what could  be crazier than that?

We need a bigger mirror in here.

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 7:15:23 AM

  (0+)

Darren, I agree with you sometimes, disagree others.. 

 But this time you said it exactly right. 

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 9:59:47 AM

  (0+)

Comment from Ratings:   Anyone who votes third party or anything other than Obama or McCain will be throwing their vote away. It will NOT count.

by uluro (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 72 comments) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 7:31:59 AM

  (0+)

I have been watching the Bendovercrats bend over for twenty five years. 

by Nathaniel Heidenheimer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 47 comments) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 8:02:35 AM

  (0+)

"Start with the Supreme Court, move on to Unions, Science, global warming, taking care of the poor and unemployed, cleaning up the gap between rich and poor, taxes, protecting social security, and that's just the beginning."

 If Obama would run with a Republican on the ticket, why not appoint one to the Supreme Court? Unions, what about Unions? Did you see their power geometrically expand under Clinton? Then why expect them to do so under Obama? Science: only if it doesn't significantly interfere with the bottom line of his campaign contributors.

 Taking care of the poor and unemployed? That's a BIG stretch. Wasn't Bush a "compassionate conservative"? By the time Clinton left office the average CEO in this country was making over 500x what the average employee makes, while it is only 20x in Japan.

 Taxes? Wall Street is flooding Obama's campaign because they expect higher taxes?

 There is a difference bewteen claiming one wants "unity" and just trying to be all things to all people. You can't have it both ways. And Obama won't give up power to do what really needs to be done to save this country.

 Better than McCain? Marginally- but not where it ultimately will make a significant difference.

by Mystic Wizard (4 articles, 286 quicklinks, 64 diaries, 201 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 8:55:00 AM

  (0+)

or liberal: 

"Start with the Supreme Court, move on to Unions, Science, global warming, taking care of the poor and unemployed, cleaning up the gap between rich and poor, taxes, protecting social security, and that's just the beginning."

 It's actually more than a little ironic the the inventor/editor of this web site is one of the biggest unwitting victims of our culture of triangulation.

 And you call us psychotic? Sounds a little like projection to me, mon frere...

by Mystic Wizard (4 articles, 286 quicklinks, 64 diaries, 201 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 9:10:06 AM

  (0+)

Every four or eight years, the pundits come out with "BUT THIS ELECTION REALLY REALLY MATTERS." Hogwash. The truly insane are those who keep repeating the same actions (voting the lesser of two evils) while expecting different results. All the criticisms anyone can lob at the neocons must be equally lobbed at the Democrats who vote with them. Both parties shredded the US Constitution in violation of their Oath. Both parties declared and fund illegal wars of aggression for the sole purpose of stealing natural resources of other nations, for obtaining strategic position, or for increasing personal profit. And the Democratic Party refuses - REFUSES - to hold the neocons accountable for at least 35 impeachable offenses. Enough! Enough with hoping the Dems are anyone other than who they are - corporate shills who act like a Friend of the People. When enough of us finally internalize the reality that the Duopoly gives not one whit about We the People, then we have a first chance at real progress. We cannot move forward - away from our corporate sponsored government - until we fully admit and embrace this reality. Voting in the U.S. is an insane act committed by those who are either ill-informed or who desperately want to believe in a system that has repeatedly shown itself incapable of expressing the will of We the People. Let's stop pretending Santa Claus is real. Let's stop pretending the Easter Bunny is real. Let's stop pretending elections in this country reflect the will of the people. Let's stop playing this stupid game and start thinking about the next best step We the People can take to implement our will.

by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 10:02:23 AM

  (0+)

Not enough people like you in it ...

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 11:12:35 AM

  (0+)

thanks, Mr M ~ I just KNEW where you'd be on this debate.  ;-)

the real trick is to get more Kevin Gosztola's and Steve Scheetz's and a whole lot of other 20-something Janes and Joes recognizing the illusion called U.S. democracy. 

How to reach THEM?

by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 2:21:47 PM

  (0+)

how do we reach anybody?

Indeed youth (if I can remember that far back) have the energy and are full of innocent bluster and can carry things into the future. But I believe our concerns are more immediate and who really needs to be reached are the 30 and 40 something "professionals" who by their own self importance have walled themselves behind stock options, amassing wealth, social climbing and aligning themselves with the status-quo. In their neighborhoods the machines aren't rigged. One turned republican is worth ten ghetto votes.

But trying to reach anybody is a task. The system has been honed to a fine science by those that control the levers of information and wealth. Years of systematic destruction of our education system and propagandising of our media and corralling people into debt has taken it's toll.

The worst though are those that have the means, have viewed the evidence and still refuse to see the truth or do a damn thing to stop the carnage. These people I simply do not understand. It's as though you discover you're living next door to an axe murderer and go on about life as though they were a show salesman. These I find more than cowardly than any.

But I do know this, soon, sooner than most think, everyone is going to feel the effects of their ignorance and our only consolation is going to be that we'll be able to say "we told you so." And I'd give anything in the world not to have to say that.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 5:31:28 PM

  (0+)

"Let's stop pretending Santa Claus is real. Let's stop pretending the Easter Bunny is real. Let's stop pretending elections in this country reflect the will of the people. 

Let's stop playing this stupid game and start thinking about the next best step We the People can take to implement our will."

There's got to be a third way- Congress, the Executive, the Courts and the corpse media are beholden to parasitic "elite" interests who are doing an amazingly shitty job of managing their selfish and destructive shell games. An economic crash will probably do more good in the long run than a "lesser evil" Obama, as it will get people to question their TV's, "representatives" and reality in record numbers. Obama has pledged to do nothing to change the cancerous system that gets him elected; immediately he will be trying to avoid assassination, get reelected and have his Administration portrayed in a positive light by establishment historians. 

What are the options? I'm open to hearing about anything that does not involve violence. We can have a non-violent revolution, and one is already happening in the mind of the human race, thanks to the web and emerging technologies. Since 9/11, the Iraq war, Katrina and all the other crimes the Bullshit Administration has committed, it seems people are waking up in record numbers. It's been over 200 years since the American Revolution, we're due for one. The longer these "elite" parasites wait to come clean and start sharing power and competing on a level playing field, the worse it will go for them and theirs by the time the People set up truth and reconciliation commissions and open up the cooked books and get witnesses under oath.

Can't governments crush nonviolent movements?

Article 5 Convention for proposing Amendments 

FOAVC.org

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1112 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 11:38:48 AM

  (0+)

thanks, BWO ~ I believe there are viable alternatives that don't involve violence; and I also doubt that a redistribution of wealth and power will ever be accomplished without it.

I thought of you this wknd... your ideas about an Article V Convention (AVC).  At a dinner debate with activist lawyers, several points were raised against this idea. 

Once you call for an AVC, all bets are off.  The Constitution is completely gone.   And it is likely what the neocons want anyway... since by their actions, that's what the duopoly has done over the last 8 years - destroyed the US Constitution.

I wouldn't want to yank the US Constitution and start over.  I think it's one of the most significant documents of the last 7,000 years.  (Oh, sure, I have no idea how the courts have interpreted it the way they have, like how the 14th Amendment somehow means that corporations are persons... but that goes to the corruption of our system.)

So, I would not attend an Article V Convention.  Amendments can be proposed without invoking this clause - which is probably just a subterfuge to toss the entire US Constitution.   Invoking Article 5 to propose constitutional amendments is akin to using a torch to rid your house of termites, instead of an insecticide. 

I think we need to be careful as we proceed.

by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 2:36:09 PM

  (0+)

before November?

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1793 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:14:47 PM

  (0+)

I've been making the argument that playing along with this "two" party system and hoping it will just spontaneously change is insane since Waco, Ruby Ridge, NAFTA, etc - i.e., my entire adult life.  I'm starting to believe that arguing with the Rob Kall's of the world puts a big question mark on my sanity!

by Dave Wheeler (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 2:01:44 PM

  (0+)

After reading all of the above comments, it seems inevitable that McCain will win the 2008 election. How have we forgotten that Nader helped to get Bush into office in 2000?

The GOP is busy purging voters in almost every state and are doing everything in their power to smear Obama - and it's obvious they don't want him elected. Why? Because he has a different agenda than McCain, and that agenda is whether or not we go to war with Iran and keep supporting the "Corporatists" that are destroying America.

No, I don't like Obama, but I do realize that compared to McCain, Obama is a far better choice. At least he believes in diplomacy, something that America has left on the sidelines for the past 7 1/2 years. Obama is far from perfect - and McCain is a guarantee of more of the same, which this country can't take. We are sinking, faster than I had imagined, and although I don't like Obama, I believe that it's imperative that McCain be blocked from winning this election. The "1933" comparison is perfect, and where would the world be today if Hitler didn't make it into power?

It appears that history does repeat itself - and knowing that, McCain is sure to win the election. I wish to God I had the money to leave this country before martial law is declared - but I don't, so I'll probably be a casualty - just as the rest of us that have opposed Bush and Cheney. If there is an election, it could be a matter of life or death in keeping McCain out of the White House.

An election is not a matter of principle, but in this case, a matter of survival. Remember, all of us have been catalogued by NSA - and when the crap hits the fan, we will be the first to be tossed in the awaiting FEMA camps. If you vote for someone who has no chance to win, why are you bothering to vote?

William Cormier

by William Cormier (152 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 420 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 10:09:12 AM

  (0+)

When I read responses like "If you don't vote for Obama, then you are voting for McCain," I CRINGE.

We have an electoral system with the two major parties who are in the tank for Corporate America. Amanda Lang submitted an article that was all about how McCain received a ton of money from the Hess Family after he decided to give the go ahead to drilling for oil.  Well, had Obama given the nod to drilling first, HE would have gotten the money.

Corporate America does not CARE who wins the White House, because Corporate America knows that either a republican or a democrat will win due to the mentality that is so pervasive in our society, and is spelled out with Rob's Article, as well as with his responses to various writers.  That thought goes something like this:  McCain is the anti-christ, and must be stopped!!  Or, on the other side, insert Obama's name....

This is how the people in the US have been conditioned and BRAINWASHED.  Corporate America does not care who wins, because Corporate America has made sure that the republican and democrat candidate will play ball, regardless of anything else.

You vote for Obama, or McCain, and it will make 0 difference to your check book balance at the end of the week...  Obama has demonstrated a startlingly uninformed view of foreign policy, but like Steve Lesser says, we need to prop him up as best we can should he win...  (how SAD is that?)

I will not vote for Obama, and I will not vote for McCain.  Being a Libertarian, my options are still open...  Currently, some in the Libertarian party feel that it is more important to be "main stream" as opposed to being for something that is a bit more tangable...  Because of this, I am thinking that Chuck Baldwin will be a better choice than Bob Barr...

Rob, if you do not know who Chuck Baldwin is, I would suggest that you find out.  You may like what you learn.  Some writers on this thread think it is crazy to vote outside of the major parties...  Is it crazy to vote for a candidate who believes in the same philosophies that I hold dear???  If it is, then I am crazy, and I will wear that as a badge of honor.

The sales pitch for Obama, according to Rob is that he is NOT McCain....  If someone wants to convince me to vote for Obama, then he/she needs to be a bit more persuasive.  The above sales pitch is rooted in the idea that we need to think less about things and allow our leaders to think more for us.  That is not what the founders intended.  They had a vision that the people would be holding their representatives' feet to the fire and ensuring that the representatives REPRESENT the people.

Regardless of anything else, voting for the big parties will guarantee only one thing........    NOTHING.

Ciao, CZ

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 10:19:05 AM

  (0+)

Is it more sane to vote "irrationally" for the candidate perceived by the individual to be best, or vote for the person who is disliked but has a better "chance of winning"?

If you follow the logic of the "None of The Mainstream Party Above's", it leads to the conclusion that having Obama in office has no significant advantage. This can certainly be argued, but when considering that the people who hold this opinion believe that Obama is a wholly controlled shill, it would seem a waste of time to argue it over anyway.

Rob will not change our minds, and we are highly unlikely to change his. The real battleground, as Rob knows, is for the readers who are on the fence. To them i would say:

> Having a Demrat controlled Congress for the last 3 years hasn't gotten us anything at all. The current leadership are so "all-in" with the corruption of corporate campaign money that nothing is going to happen, now or in the future. Look at Harry Reid (if you can stomach it), he actually sneered publicly about Kucinich's trying to get into the Nevada primary MSNBC debate... The one where NBC proudly sited their "First Amendment Rights" to keep Kucinich out of the debate, and NBC had the juice to bring back all the Nevada Supremes from vacation with 1 day's notice to get the order from the Circuit Judge overturned... The people like Reid are part of the problem, and certainly not the solution.

Reid also certainly knows all about new and proven cold-fusion related technology that would treat radioactive waste to make it completely non-radioactive (as is being done in China and considered in Canada now). Yet he follows the mainstream dictates to never discuss it, and lets HIS state be the dumping ground for it when such a dangerous move is not even required. Hes a prime example of what is wrong with the Demorat party... And I for one, am not voting for ANY party that has such a traitorous shill like him in its top leadership.  

> All you need do is look at Obama's refusal to even mention Impeachment to see what kind of man he is...  All you need do is consider his weak  collaborator stances on the wars of aggression. And then there are all the liberty-stealing issues to consider... He hasn't lifted a finger to stop them. Nor really has anyone in this Demorat WORST Senate in our history.

> Go take a look where all these millions of campaign dollars for Obama are coming from... So much he can turn his nose up at matching federal funds... This in itself is damning.  Those corporate entities would not be backing him if they thought he would be bad for their business. The problem is, we know from the last 7 years of THEIR rule, that their business is nothing but bad for us.  

> Obama's healthcare plan is a joke, and is so bad that not only would it never have any chance of being seriously considered by Demorats let alone the opposition, but it is CYNICALLY designed to never have a chance. This also goes to the man's integrity, which from the above points, you can see he HAS NONE.

> What does Omama plan to do about our manufacturing jobs being all DELIBERATELY sent overseas? I mean besides barely mentioning it when he happens to be traveling through MI or OH? NOTHING of any worth. What does he plan to do about the energy crisis? NOTHING of any worth (...inflate our tires better???). What are his plans for rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure, or building mass transit systems? NOTHING of any worth.

Why the HELL should be even consider this guy?? Because he will not be worse than McCane? In what ways? PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY HE WOULD BE BETTER, not just repeat it over and over as if it is a given...... Because it is not a given.   

There is a strong dislike for the other side: This is tribal politics; instinctual at root, and hard to overcome. But once you come to realize that the clever manipulations of those in power and who wish to always remain in power have put us here... Then rooting for the blue chariot over the "bad guy" red chariot in the Roman Circus races loses it's appeal rather quickly.

Especially when you know the fix is in anyway. 

There is an answer though.... http://www.opednews.com/articles/Coalition-Reform-Third-Par-by-Steve-Windisch--ji-080803-668.html

by Steve Windisch (jibbguy) (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 361 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 10:48:38 AM

  (0+)

and you and all others who have it right and are still beating that goddam drum as loud as they can! Hotdamn. This one backfired a few times ...dinnit?

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 12:24:20 PM

  (0+)

Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. 

Ok now that we've got that cleared up.  If I have two bad choices, maybe one is worse than the other.  Applying the definition above, it's pretty insane for me to repeatedly choose the one I think is less bad and some how think that will make thing better instead of worse.  Choosing bad is still bad   Is not it logical to seek out a third choice that isn't bad?

So if I understand Rob correctly, Obama = Bad, McCain = Really Bad, so we should vote for Obama and things will be better?  

Sorry Rob I must be too simple minded as I cannot comprehend how choosing a candidate who I view is bad for the country can some how make things better.  No, maybe it's my critical thinking skills that I've developed as an Engineer that I cannot grasp something so logically flawed.

I can't in good conscience vote for a candidate that doesn't take their oath of office to protect and preserve The Constitution seriously, Has a kindergarten or less comprehension of economics, or hasn't a clue what the biggest threats to our country are.  McCain and Obama fail all three of these tests. 

Saying we have to choose between Obama and McCain is like someone Pointing a gun at you and asking if you want to be shot in the left arm or the right arm.  They don't tell you your third option of diving for cover and not being shot at all.  Personally I would choose to dive for cover and not get shot at all.  I may not have a great probablity of succeding but I would be pretty stupid not to try. 

Rob you sound like a shill for the two party dualopoly.  Please enlighten me why you belive we must constrain ourselves to being a Democrat or Republican?

by brian hammer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 2:33:04 PM

  (0+)

Dont oppose todays equivalent of the German Social Democrats and allow the Nazis to come to power.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2148 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 4:10:32 PM

  (0+)

Because if you are, I am thinking that you need to look at his voting record in the Senate.

Ciao, CZ 

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 6, 2008 at 9:22:17 AM

  (0+)

(not really, but here's something she recently wrote)

http://dailystaregypt.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=15446

by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:30:52 PM

  (0+)

... in case you or anyone else is wondering. I saw her in person here in NYC and she as much as said so.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2148 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 6:39:04 PM

  (0+)

"we cannot help ourselves"

yeah, she posted something on huffpost to that effect (that obama got her vote)... and exemplifies what she describes above

by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 9:30:03 PM

  (0+)

In the past, I could vote for a 3rd party candidate because I was in a solidly red state. (I still took a lot of venom for it. That kind of nastiness helped turn a few people I know away from the democratic party permanently.) Now, however, it is not such an easy choice. I'll play along with the charade again because it strikes me as harmless to do so. (So what if I voted for a fascist who was going to win/lose anyway?) If there is the vague hope that Obama might prove to be slightly nicer than McCain and might even retard the slow-motion train wreck our country is undergoing by just a little, thus allowing my aging parents a few more months, maybe even years, of comfort, then what the hell! I will observe the msm over the next few months. They will make it clear who the next prez will be and the rigged voting machines will confirm it. But I'll vote for Obama anyway. In other words: I give up.

by Oh (7 articles, 5 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 321 comments [41 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 8:40:25 PM

  (0+)

Rob wrote:

This planet has been afflicted with eight years of toxic, pathological, verging on apocaplyptically destructive, extreme right wing Republican leadership in the form of Bush and Cheney. McCain is doing all he can to convince his base that he will do more of the same.

That leadership would have been totally ineffective without a Democratic Party following to support it, protect it, and give it everything it wanted. The Democrats have even pre-funded the wars of aggression until 2010, just so that McCain won't have to ask them for money if he wins.

In the 2000 election, Florida had illegally purged the rolls of Democratic voters. Everyone knew it. The Congressional Black Caucus protested the fraudulent Florida electoral votes. If Al Gore hadn't ignored the fact that Democratic voters had been illegally disenfranchised, and personally ordered all Democratic Senators not to sign the CBC petition to reject the fraudulent Florida electoral vote, Bush couldn't have taken office. Gore wanted to smooth Bush's transition to office for what he said was "the good of the country," and he STILL hasn't repudiated those words. He believed a Bush presidency would be good for the country then and he still believes it. It has been very good for the wealthy elite like Gore.

In 2004 John Kerry took advantage of the huge numbers of Democrats angry that the 2000 election had been stolen and raised millions of dollars by promising to ensure that this time our votes would be counted. Then he reneged because he also claimed that conceding to Bush would be for the good of the country and he also has never repudiated his words.

Now the Democratic Party's nominee is a man whose mentor was Joe Lieberman, Gore's closeted Republican running mate, and who is also committed to wars of aggression and crimes against humanity.

Wars of aggression, according to the Nuremberg Principles, are the worst crimes against humanity. Both candidates are committed to continuing them and both parties voted to pre-fund them until 2010. The lesser of two evils paradigm is asking whether Idi Amin or Hitler was less evil. Obviously it was Idi Amin, since he killed fewer people. So that would justifying voting for Idi Amin against Hitler, that he was less evil? Both Obama and McCain have voted to fund wars of aggression and both are committed to continuing the crimes against humanity in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There is no lesser evil in this race. And there is no way of ensuring that the person you vote for is the one your vote will be counted for.

It is psychotic to vote for war criminals. And it is psychotic to vote for anyone in an election that you know can be as easily stolen as the last two were.

People who care don't vote in rigged elections at all, and certainly wouldn't vote for war criminals, greater or lesser, even if the elections were honest.

It is voting in faith-based elections that is psychotic. Sane people don't gamble in crooked card games. Sane people don't risk their country and their children's future betting on a fixed horse race. And even if our elections were free, fair, open, honest, fully transparent, citizen-verifiable rather than privatized, and totally reliable, sane people wouldn't vote for war criminals.

I came to the conclusion some time back that I don't live in a sane country. When correspondents in other parts of the world ask me about politics in my country I explain sheepishly that I don't live in a country--I live in a lunatic asylum that calls itself a country. People who vote in rigged elections here call those who won't vote in rigged elections psychotic. People who vote for war criminals berate others for not caring about democracy. People who have never experienced democracy and haven't the vaguest idea what it is, but who are fully aware that our Constitution doesn't even allow us to directly vote for Presidential candidates, continue to ask, over and over and over and over, as if repetition could make it so, which candidate people are going to vote for. NONE--our Constitution does not allow us to vote for President or Vice-President. NO American voter outside of the Electoral College will vote for any Presidential candidate.

The worst thing about this asylum is that the only meds they hand out just make the people crazier than they were before.

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2008 at 9:06:14 PM

  (0+)

You are desperate and grasping at straws.

You give us McCain and Obama, and neglect to mention that each has a party standing behind them. 

Review in your own mind what the Democrats have done to help destroy this country over the last eight years. Look at the issues. Impeachment. Support and funding of the war. Patriot Act. Military Tribunals, FISA, Homegrown Terrorist Act, turning their backs on torture and the horrific treatment of our wounded vets, loss of civil rights, the Constitution and rule of law, and on and on. And they approved Alito, Roberts, Mukasey, Gonzo and so many others in our misadministration.

You cannot separate the 'leaders' from the followers, thinking in your magical way, that the new leader will pull his party into line. You cannot believe, in your 'real view' that Obama will change  anything. He already is behind the war, and FISA, empire and is for giving Israel a virtual veto over any action we might take in the Middle East, among other issues. He has Republican style neolib disaster capitalist economic advisors. What more do you need to realize that yours is a losing plea?

You want us to once again, dash our heads into a wall, thinking that this time it will be different, this time we the people, will be listened to. Get real Rob. Ain't gonna happen. Guaranteed. You are talking about electing a Democrat in an era when the Democrats have done as much to destroy this country as the GD Republicans. 

Electing Obama and saying we can hold his feet to the fire, is empty, mindless. Again, in simple words-ain't gonna happen. You parrot these phrases with nothing but ill considered venom behind them, but no rational thought process to explain just how we hold their feet to the fire. Like we have been able to hold Pelousi's feet to the fire on impeachment? Like getting Conyers to hold real hearings? Like seeing contempt citations laid out and enforced? Come on Rob. You're drinking too much Dem koolaid.

You are only proposing a slow national death by Democratic  poisoning instead of a quick death by Republican fiat.

Always, it is never the time for a third party. Well, now is the time for one. Now is the time to vote for a third party candidate.  It may actually be the only way we are heard. Not gonna happen by electing Obama. They will take it as a mandate and continue to destroy what little remains of America.

You offer overblown emotional rhetoric with no substance. You give us no reason to vote for Obama. You give us Anybody but McCain. 

So 'where's the beef' Rob?  How about explaining how the Party that laid down the foundation for our current national economic mess, with the generous help of Phil Gramm is going magically to change and fix everything. Explain to me how the Democrats who began deregulation under Carter, developed NAFTA, GATT, the WTO under Clinton, who generated the mess in the mortgage and banking industries, who helped reduce the oversight of the SEC, is going to make it all better.

That is just plain rubbish Rob. Your views are of the Democrats as saviors are just too skewed to be worthy of consideration.

You won't lose me with your comments here - much more likely to see me go away in simple disappointment is seeing the decline of OpEd News. The bloom is off the rose, and it is not living up to the promise it showed a few months ago.

No thanks Rob. I've seen my country destroyed by voting lesser evil. I have seen the Democrats participate wholeheartedly in the dismantling of the USA. Voting a Democrat into office has not worked. Now I will try it my way, and I hope many many other voters do likewise. 

by Jack Harrington (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 676 comments [70 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 6, 2008 at 1:43:17 AM

  (0+)

I think Obama will win.  I agree he's not perfect but would like to see him win.  I agree with your assessment of people who believe that in a democratic system they always get to vote for someone they agree with on every issue.  The bumper sticker "quit bitching and start a revolution" comes to mind. 

Congressional elections, different story.  Here in Albany, NY the Democrats rule.  I have no opportunity to vote against my H of R incumbent since he's retiring.  Soon I'll be voting in the primary to select a successor candidate, but I'm not sure I'll be voting for him or her in the general election.   Neither of my senators is up for re-election but I would not vote for either Clinton or Schumer if they were.  Either would win handily, but I'd rather it be less my vote.  If things were different in my district and my actions could bring about a reduction in the Democratic majority or even a Republican takeover I would do the same.  I think most incumbents should go.  If I were in Kucinich's district I would vote for him.  If I were in Pelosi's district I would vote for Cindy Sheehan.  I have only recently come around to this way of thinking, the quasi-impeachment hearings helped tip the balance.

Continuing my answer to your title question--as opposed to the poll question--I think the angry left votes for McKinney will be offset by the angry right votes for Barr.   

by Maxwell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 409 comments [85 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 6, 2008 at 9:21:14 AM

  (0+)

Rob:

I will not stop reading but I can not allow this to go without a comment.

The lesser of two evils is still evil. 

This does not make me "nutty" and I feel you owe us (collective) an apology for impugning my ability to differentiate between Obama and McCain.  I see Obama running as the black George W. Bush and McCain is running as the younger Ronald Reagan.

There has been a series of crimes commited by the US government both against the world (illegal war - torture - eavesdropping/FISA) and neither Obama nor McCain can see that.  In fact Obama, as a "Constitutional scholar", voted for a FISA modification that is clearly negating the 4th Amendment.  And McCain . . .?  Neither can bring themselves to call for the resignation of Secretary Rice though there is enough evidence to link her to torture which just happens to be a crime according to both international and US law.  Have either of these candidates spoken out concerning the Unitary Executive theory advanced by Yoo?  We are going to be in Iraq imposing an illegal occupation on a former sovereign state regardless of which of these candidates "wins".  I could go on but I think you might "get the picture".

I argue rather that Americans strike and boycott.  Start on the 10th of October and simply sit down at work, at school, and at the malls.  This dries up the source of the fuel for the National WarParty.  Then boycott the election.  Or vote for yourself or a third party candidate.

I suspect that more "reasonable" voices may have a problem with this notion but nothing has ever been acheived by listening to "reasonable voices".

I want to re-assure you that I find this effort to be intellectually stimulating and I even find myself in agreement with many posters (including Rob Kall).  But . . . I will not vote for the younger Ronald Reagan OR the black George W. Bush.  In 2000 I voted for Ralph Nadar and in 2004 I voted for John Kerry.  I have suffered more political anst over my 2004 vote than I ever will about my 2000 vote.  I won't get fooled again!

by ed kriner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 36 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:23:18 AM

  (0+)

I don't think either McCain or Obama can destroy this country, the planet or the human race, and that's not a reason to vote for or against either of the oil/insurance/finance industry money-grubbing pigs.

We the People have essentially given up our Republic by accepting the Republocrat thesis that we need leaders, and they're the best and brightest. We bought into the consumer culture socially engineered post WWII in exchange for our liberty. However, We the People are still the government, and the buck stops with us, not the "elite" parasites who feed off us. 

It's 3 months to the election; McCain and Obama are nothing new- same pigs, different faces. Record numbers of voters are registering because of 9/11, 2 stolen elections, Iraq war lies, warrantless spying (which Obama endorses), Katrina, etc. etc. Many of them will no doubt buy into the lesser evil argument. 

Decades of polling show supermajorities are sick of the fake 2 party system; that's a real demographic. 

Kucinich and Paul were consistently among the most popular in online polling. Even if they or McKinney were to get elected, they might likely get quickly assassinated, or the Republocrats in Congress would block any substantive reforms.

Two stolen elections, and an unaccountable electoral system; if the Rethugs want to steal 08, will the fake "liberal" media report on it this time?

Things are changing, due to the abuses of the subhuman "elite" parasites, and the exponential growth of technology, which is making the world transparent, even though they don't like it. The elites can't stop it from happening, cuz business needs it, and other nation-states are invested as well.

Obama will get assassinated if he tries substantive reform, which he's already made clear he's not interested in.

I'm not betting on the candidates, I'm betting on the People.

I didn't vote, as I was insulted by the choices, and there wasn't a "not sure" option- I don't have to make up my mind til I mark my stolen ballot.

Plus, I live in CA, a safe state- though you might be surprised at how the racists are coming out of the closet here. 

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1112 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 4, 2008 at 10:45:45 PM

  (0+)