corporatists and are essentially right-wing operations. It's not a matter of "McCain," as you claim. Obama is at best only marginally different from McCain. His main differences are a sunnier smile, a more youthful gait, & more BS about "hope and change."

You apparently didn't really listen to the Berlin speech, even though you praise it. It was a full-throated endorsement of Bush's endless "War on Terror," which Obama not only supports 100%, but for which he's also demanding additional NATO soldiers. The Berlin speech was also filled with absurd lies about the history of the Cold War, which was not, as Obama claims, based on US committment to high-minded ideals ("freedom, democracy," blah blah blah), but was simply a struggle to make the world safe for US transnational corporations.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:45:47 AM

  (0+)

I am no apologist for the Democratic Party, it has been a great disappointment as a whole over these last eight years, but your assessment of the "marginal" distinction between McCain and Obama woud be laughable if it was not such a tragic misunderstanding of the reality in which we are living, and of the choices that all of us are called on to make.

by richard power (14 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Monday, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:06:45 AM

  (0+)

the framework of US militarism & corporatism. Both pass every single Pentagon appropriation, & pretend that the endless "War on Terror" is a legitimate response to 9-11. Both support Fed bailouts for Wall Street swindlers, rather than prosecution of these criminals. The R's fully support torture, while the D's haven't raised the slightest fuss about it (& helped pass the MCA in Oct '06). Both parties support warrantless spying on US citizens, & deny that the Bush admin has committed any impeachable crimes. Both support the 2 ongoing occupations, & refuse to acknowledge or confront the serious lies that led to the launch of those 2 "wars." Both support the whitewash produced by the fake 9-11 Commission.  When the R's stole the election of 2000 (& probably 2004 as well), the D's rolled over & said nothing. Both parties work closely with lobbyists, & never bite the hand of these lobbyists.

This is just off the top of my head, & is not intended as an exhaustive list. Now it's your turn. You tell us why the list I've just produced does not mean that both parties basically function as instruments of the corporate oligarchy & the military-industrial complex; and that as such, neither of them can possibly have any solutions for problems faced by the US electorate -- since the untrammeled power of corporations (including the MIC) IS in fact the main problem faced by the electorate.

Anyone with any intellectual integrity knows that the dog-and-pony show of the 2-party system is a fraud. It's not intended for placing democratic control of government into the hands of the populace, but merely the staged illusion of democratic control. People who believe the Dem Party is a real alternative don't understand how the system works. The whole purpose of the DP is to buy off the population, to make them think they have a "choice" when in fact, they don't. 

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:53:54 AM

  (0+)

Your thought process is a wonderful example of the kind of thinking that led Nader to campaign against Gore in Flordia on the last weekend of the campaign in 2000, and 90K or so misguided Floridians to vote for him as well; thus making it easier for Baker, Karl Rove and Scalia to steal.

Nader was going around saying there was no differennce between Gore and Bush. That was a lie. And Nader knew it. Such a lie that one can't help but question his motivation.

 I don't question your motivation, but I will tell you this --

 If Gore had been sworn in, it is very possible that 9/11 would not have happened, and even if it had, we would not have invaded Iraq, we would not have gutted the US treasury w/ the tax cuts for the rich and then this foolish military adventure, we would not have lied about climate change and hid from the truth of it for eight years, we would not have sanctioned systematic violation of Geneva Accords on torture, we would not have perverted FISA or so grievously attacked the Bill of Rights, Alito and Roberts would not have been added to the court. I know all to well what the Democratic leadership in Congress has gone along with since 2000. And there are many reasons -- some justified, some disgraceful ... But to say there was no difference between Gore and Bush was a lie, and to say there is only marginal difference between Obama and McCain is at best self-deceit.

Life is too short, so don't expect more from me.

I tried to debate this mentality in 2000, but now eight years later, I realize it is just best to let people find out for themselves.

All the Best,

 R

by richard power (14 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Monday, Aug 11, 2008 at 12:27:41 PM

  (0+)

is an oversimplification of his complete thought. It's not that there is "no difference" between the parties, but rather that the few differences are mostly in the area of style & rhetoric. They are "differences that make no difference." The spectrum between Repub & Dem is tiny, ranging from "militarism & corporatism without abortion rights" to "militarism & corporatism with abortion rights."

Both parties supported all of Bush's nominations, including former AG Ratso Gonzales, the 2 new rightwing extremists on the Supreme Court, & the new AG Mukasey, also clearly a fascist. The Democrats never challenged Bush's hundreds of signing statements, which "merely" invalidate the will of the populace, as expressed by its elected legislature. The Democrats never challenged the underlying Bush doctrine of the "unitary executive," a euphemism for a presidential dictatorship. The new FISA law is a direct repudiation of the 4th Amendment -- and the Democrats on balance support this repudiation, claiming (along with Bush) that "national security" trumps the Constitution.

Neither party allows voters to cast a ballot against immoral wars, or against the US Treasury being used as a piggy bank for big business. Without a chance to vote against that, the so-called "difference" between the parties is a farce. 

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 11, 2008 at 12:42:45 PM

  (0+)

had to argue your side, I'd run away from it as well.

If you decide to return to the discussion (I know, you're "too busy" and "life is short", etc - heh heh) -- focus on this: The 2-party system is designed to give the public virtually no choice. Both parties are full partners in this. They both support forcing the public to choose between Republican and Republican-Lite. If the Democrats weren't so deeply intertwined with every single Republican policy, & all the institutions of corporate power that hold the 2-party system aloft, they'd sometimes expose Republicans for their crimes, or defend the Constitution, or defend the right of the public to a wider range of political choices.

The fact that they never do any of these things tells us whose side they're really on -- and it's not the side of voters' democratic rights. The Dem Party is simply a device that grants the public a few years of gentler rhetoric, in between periods of harsh rightwing rule. It's merely a safety-valve, intended to let the public blow off steam -- without in any way challenging the harsh policies that so consistently favor the rich, while looting the rest of us & impoverishing our so-called "democracy."

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 11, 2008 at 1:47:12 PM

  (0+)

I am flabbergasted at how you can know the truth about 9/11, the stolen elections of 2000 and 2004, Katrina, etc and still not be able to see through the two party shell game.  It is not that there is NO difference between the Democrats and Republicans; it is that the difference is TOO SLIGHT to justify all the time, money, and energy adherents of the lesser evil strategy expend on getting Democrats elected.

Consider three of the most crucial present issues.  Impeachment is very, very crucial since Bush is engaged in setting up a dictatorship in the United States and will likely finish the job if he is not impeached.  Yet Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table as soon as she became Speaker of the House.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq is also crucial since it has resulted in the deaths of over 4100 American troops, the life changing injury of ten times as many, and the death of one million Iraqis according to the methods of estimating used by THE LANCET.  And THE LANCET'S method of taking a poll and using the percentages obtained from the poll to estimate the number of Iraqi deaths is the best methodology.  In addition, the U.S. has poured a trillion dollars down the rat hole of Iraq.  But the proposals for withdrawing from Iraq of both Obama and McCain are tardy and long delayed and both leave enough loopholes involving keeping some American troops in Iraq in a support role to the Iraqi government.  Depending on how many American troops in a support role the Iraqi government needs in order to survive, this loophole is broad enough to allow the Iraq war to continue at its present, or even an escalated, level.

On single payer health care, Hiliary Clinton dismissed it on the grounds that the American people just wont support it.  Clinton's proposal at least provided for universal coverage although by requiring everyone to purchase private health insurance, with subsidies for poorer people.  Barak Obama's proposal does not even provide for universal coverage.  But since escalating medical costs are threatening to become too expensive for society to pay, and since at least 20% of every health care dollar is wasted through private health insurance companies playing postal ping pong by mailing medical bills back and forth to each other, single payer is the ONLY way of keeping medical costs within sustainable levels.  Hence, since no alternative to single payer will work, then, even if the American people wont support it, the only solution to the health care crisis is to keep advocating and explaining the necessity of single payer until the American people do support it.

Since electing the Democrats will not achieve any progress on impeachment, the Iraq war, and single payer, just where is the payoff necessary to justify the lesser evil strategy?

Ralph Nader did not cost Al Gore the election.  When the Supreme Injustices carried out the equivalent of a military coup by ordering us to stop counting the votes and appointed Bush President, Gore was ahead by more than one hundred to over five hundred votes in Florida according to four of the six scenarios the media considered when they reported the results of their recount.  These four scenarios were the only ones in which a consistent method of counting the ballots was used.  The other two involved the different standards for counting ballots used in the different Florida counties.  Secondly, the Florida counties outsourced the job of purging the votes of convicted felons to private companies.  The low bidders who won the contracts were the companies who only used a list of those who had been CHARGED with felonies without further checking to see if they had been CONVICTED.  It was estimated that Gore lost 90,000 votes because of this.  And thirdly, there were many traditional Republicans who were outraged that instead of fiscal discipline and small government, the Republican Party had become the party of even bigger government, escalating deficits, and borrow and spend instead of tax and spend.  It is estimated that half of Nader's votes came from these disaffected Republicans.

Others have already critiqued your predictions about what would and would not have happened if Gore had become President.  I will add just one anecdote to complete the critique.  Someone once, in the late 1960's, told me that he had said to a conservative friend: "You vote for Goldwater and within six months we'll be in Vietnam!"  After Lyndon Johnsom was elected, the conservative friend said to him: "You know, you were right.  I did vote for Goldwater and we are in Vietnam!"

Robert Halfhill

by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 325 comments) on Tuesday, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:16:50 AM

  (0+)

I have been standing by the side of the road with signs saying: "911 was the Setup. Oil Wars were the Con" for years. Do I risk my life? Yes. But, I would rather risk my life with some signs by the road before a war, than after it starts when every death is just a nothing. I have been doing this for four years. Start thinking like soldiers. You've got the mental guts, now turn them into physical and social guts as well. By the way, my car is covered with signs pointing out how cons work. They say, "Suckers are made" or "Crooks put suckers to sleep" etc.

by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1760 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 11, 2008 at 12:59:49 PM

  (0+)

Gore had been president are not valid, since it didn't transpire, to assume makes an ASS of U and ME.

Your support of Gore is understandable as he was the only candidate to challenge Bu$h. People who supported Nader don't really know the whole story behind the man, who is a self promoter and has used lies and deceit to garner his results of past causes he has undertaken. Example: is the intentional wrecking of the Corvair, which was a good alternative to the imports it was competing against at its time.

Though a Gore administration may have been less tragic for the USA and the world at large, the way Washington works would not have drastically changed to the benefit of the people.

by Stanimal (2 articles, 226 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 1254 comments [234 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 11, 2008 at 5:20:43 PM

  (0+)

I tend to agree that there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats.  When I look in the mirror I do NOT see a Republican and resent anyone thinking I would back much of their agenda.  However, there is truth in that Democratic politicians do not always "walk the talk" - as the old saying goes.  I've little trust in politicians of any persuasion.  In the long run, they are all susceptible to the enticements of power and money.

What it comes down to, then, is exactly what Richard Power asks:  will the US electorate lay down in the poppy field and - like Dorothy drift off into blissful unconsciousness?  That question implies the responsibility for change is on the shoulders of the electorate, not Barack Obama.  And, frankly, that is exactly where it should be.

If we the people wish to make changes in our governing process and economy we need to shake off the poppy dust - or whatever it was that put Dorothy to sleep - and start acting like intelligent human beings.  This will hurt, I think, given that so many of us watch reality shows, thereby consigning our minds to a fantasy world which is far more comfortable and less demaning than America today.  So many changes needed.  But none of them will happen until we begin again to think critically.  What an adventure that will be!

by Diane Cadonau (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 11, 2008 at 5:27:34 PM

  (0+)

But they will suck on the electronic crackpipe to get their daily fix of the sweet morphine dream of American exceptionalism, sex scandals, celebrity gossip, 'reality' TV and NFL football off of the electronic crackpipe.

Nothing at all will be able to wean them from it so debilitating has the addiction become.

EE

by Ed Encho (12 articles, 20 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 438 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 11, 2008 at 6:02:05 PM

  (0+)

Mr. Power, I believe your heart is in the right place but if we just dissect #1 on your list:

"There will not be much of a future for US democratic institutions if the electorate forgets that the slaughter of the innocents on 9/11 is likely the direct result of criminal negligence in the White House. "

While I would only mention that our electorate can't "forget" something that they don't know about. There is no "there" there, the corporate media propaganda machine has manifested what Bernays started to a fine art. Or perhaps you haven't taken a stroll and talked to Joe Schmo lately. Believe me, you can now get arrested, if not in a fight, walking through an airport or sitting at a bar for saying half the things we discuss in these hollowed cyber-halls, or inside one of your book-signings. 

I too use 9/11 as a dividing line to gauge how much one might be in tune and it's why I have to shake my head when people will say 9/11 was an inside job, (which you only imply was "negligence", which I would than say if it were, who was held accountable), and than in their next breath say they support Obama, when I would challenge anyone to bring forth evidence that he will support a new investigation into 9/11, or near any D outside of a very few exceptions, maybe Kucinich, and who else? Or maybe a better question would be whom would MSM let us know about?

What makes you think we'll see justice with D's when they obviously knew, or if don't know are too stupid to be in office to begin with? And I am not implying 9/11 was an inside job, I'm convinced it was an inside job. So how can an old man sitting on his couch come to this absolute conclusion when people closer to reins of power, with all their vast connections and personal contact, be so clueless to this fact if they're not complicit, if by nothing more than willful ignorance?

Believe me, I would love nothing better to believe that we could work within the system and resolve the problems we face the way it's supposed to work, but again, there is no there, there. If we ever had a chance it was before any of us were born. We really don't stand a chance when we can't even count our votes and we have no control over our own money. The game is rigged, and it's pretty much corrupted all the way through. We certainly don't have a chance on a national level. We have to concede that the enemy has hold of our federal government. Dems being the Gambino's and Repubs the Genovese's.

If we have any hope at all it has to become local. We're going to have to make sure the people we elect are hip to 9/11 and we can look them in the eye, and I don't care if they're D, R, I, G, or Martian, and we need to work our way up.

But we might never even get a chance to exercise any of these plans and get our country back because Joe Schmo is for the most part not even aware of what's taking place and those that have been seeking to dominate have been working to do so for generations, if not millenniums.

So our chances are slim to none. They're certainly zero if you're counting on anyone from either of the major parties. Again, no there, there.

Enjoy what we have, it's later than you think.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 11, 2008 at 6:33:19 PM

  (0+)

But all roads lead to the ROYALS that started this country, and are still in control. This is their CHESS BOARD and they play by their own rules, we are sheep heared by PAWNS,of global elite, ROYALS and the once you know this, the easyer and happer you will be knowing that God is your only hope.

by MARGARET BASET (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 345 comments [45 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 12, 2008 at 3:51:47 AM

  (0+)

Hugely LATER than we think. In all areas of this world. It is TOO LATE. WE are in huge troubles everywhere and in every political system, the natural world and whatever else one might list.

In the above, I didn't see anyone talk about Obama and his open support for our Israel puppets. But I didn't read every word, did some skimming, looking for Israel.  Oh well. WE shall soon be meeting the piper in this country. We have shed blood where we should have not, and it matters not in a sense if the people in this country don't get 911. It does matter that they don't get stealing, killing, coveting etc, of other people's land and resources. That is what America will pay for. 2'+ million Iraqi citizens dead, at least that many who have sought shelter elsewhere, at least 18,000 of our children dead who played warrior there. I don't know what we have done to Afghanistan but it's a lot.

 We had Marines in Georgia, and that was told at some point on TV but denied today. We are the cause of that slaughter over pipelines that do not belong to us. Russia, who threw out their bolsheviks and Nazis have had enough I think, and America will come limping home from there.

Where is America about this proposed war in Iran???? Where are those good Christians claiming to serve Christ? Will, serving the antichrist. Me thinks great shame is about to befall us.  And there are some, who I have discovered from participating in 911 "awareness" events, find it just fine that this was an inside job, so they can have cheaper oil. There are a fair number of these ones. Then the rest who have forgotten or don't give a damn. One of the most disheartening things to do, is engage in a downtown during rush hour 911 awareness event. It provides awareness for sure, to us who do give a damn, that most others don't give a damn.

 I wish I had an answer about how to awaken the sleepers, but they are so busy chasing money, materialism, "their opinions" and all the other dividing crap the "jews" put out. This is a mindless country for the most part. Amazing, isn't it.   Take care, Candace www.abundanthope.net

by Candace Frieze (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments) on Monday, Aug 11, 2008 at 8:18:34 PM

  (0+)

in your last paragraph? You wrote, "I wish I had an answer about how to awaken the sleepers, but they are so busy chasing money, materialism, "their opinions" and all the other dividing crap the "jews" put out...."

Are we to understand from this that in your opinion, the people mainly responsible for divisiveness in US society are "The Jews"? Are you aware that there's something wrong with this formulation?

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 11, 2008 at 9:59:02 PM

  (0+)

The last major event for me was Statehood for Israel in 1948. I've been grateful to live in a place removed from gas chambers.

Other events form a repetitious jumble in my head. They came as hope, lingered for a while then sank into despair. The Bush Administration shed new light for me. It collected the evil excesses of the centuries and dropped the chaos directly on our heads.

Julius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, Pedro the Cruel, Torquemada, Blackbeard, Vlad the Impaler, John Dillinger and Dick Cheney are alive and thriving in Washington DC.

Since most Americans have slept through the last sixty years, I doubt if many of them will rise from their slumbers before the Messiah comes.

by Jason Paz (68 articles, 88 quicklinks, 112 diaries, 1386 comments [97 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Aug 12, 2008 at 4:19:46 AM

  (0+)

Comment from Ratings:   Although admittedly depressing (because of the undeniably possibility, indeed probability) that the US Electorate will indeed lay down in the "Poppy Field" 0f tue Big Lies spawned and cultivated by the Right Wing and the illegitimate Bush/Cheney/Rove Regime. We need to take every opportunity to remind and educate the voting public how dishonest, depraved and poisonous this administration has been, and moreover that our national indifference/inertia long ago ran out the clock. Message to America: "it's gotten MUCH later than you think..." It may already be past the point of "no return."

by Jesster (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Tuesday, Aug 12, 2008 at 4:42:35 AM

  (0+)