We are now at the end of a most disappointing political year (at least for those who had such hopes as I had), and the beginning of the presidential primary season.
What was most disappointing about the year now ending is that, in the aftermath of the American people giving the Democrats majority control of Congress, the Democrats showed so little will and ability to fight.
As the Democrats are about to begin choosing their standard bearer for the battle for the White House next fall, I maintain that the single most important characteristic the Democrats should base that choice upon is, "Who is most able and willing to fight the Bushite forces.
In making that assertion, I may be committing the proverbial error "fighting the last war." But I don't think so. The face-card Bushites may leave office, but the Bushite forces behind them are not going away. Remaining to bedevil any Democratic president will be the Murdocks and the Limbaughs and the corporate thugs who think our democracy should serve as a tool for their own private greed. There will still be those other forces in the Republican Party that make acting like a fascist the preferred campaign strategy of almost every major Republican candidate.
What we do not need, in the face of such forces, is a Democratic leader who will recapitulate the strategies of capitulation that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have enacted so cravenly this year.
My main purpose here is not to engage in candidate endorsement. But this is how this criterion --that we need a fighter-- sorts out the field for me.
Clinton has been able to persuade me that, in some sense, she is "tough." But her vote to label the Iranian Republican Guard as a "terrorist organization" (among other things) tells me that she cannot be relied upon to use her toughness where it is needed. She seems more eager to counter the perception of female=weak, so that she can get elected, than she does to fight Bushite fascism.
Obama has made it a hallmark of his campaign to sound the note of reconciliation, of bringing people together. In many situations, I would applaud this. But to talk about reconciliation when there's still a war going on, and when the enemy is still dominating the field, takes a spiritual virtue and converts it into a sign of faulty judgment. We need a warrior now, and if Obama cannot understand that this is a moment to fight, then he's not our man.
Of the three candidates who seem to have a reasonable shot at the nomination, only Edwards has spoken like the fighter we need. As I mentioned in a commentary to an earlier piece, I am still wondering what it says about his judgment and his capacities as a warrior that Edwards refused in the general election campaign of 2004 to be even as tough as too-wimpy John Kerry wanted him to be, and to tackle Darth Cheney head-on in those debates. But the John Edwards we see in the campaign these days, and who made his fortune as a courtroom warrior, might conceivably have the guts and the skills to tackle the dark Bushite forces in the coming general election campaign and thereafter from the Oval Office.
Among the other candidates Dennis Kucinich has been reliably feisty, and Chris Dodd this month played a heroic role --countering Harry Reid-- in blocking that Bushite-protecting FISA legislation. These men are fighting the fight. But they do not appear to be real contenders for the nomination.
Andrew Bard Schmookler's website www.nonesoblind.org is devoted to understanding the roots of America's present moral crisis and the means by which the urgent challenge of this dangerous moment can be met. Dr. Schmookler is also the author of such books as The Parable of the Tribes: The Problem of Power in Social Evolution (SUNY Press) and Debating the Good Society: A Quest to Bridge America's Moral Divide (M.I.T. Press). He also conducts regular talk-radio conversations in both red and blue states.
RIGHT NOW THERE IS NOT ONE DEM WORTH VOTING FOR , AND ALSO MOST OF REP, THERE IS ONLY ONE CANDIDATE WHO WILL FIGHT THE FIGHT AND STAND UP TO POWER RON PAUL, AN DENNIS IS A GOOD MAN, BUT NOW QUALIAFIED TO BE PRESIDENT. MYBE VICE PRESIDENT MIGHT BE A BETTER ROLL.
by
RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments)
on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 at 9:03:44 AM
and I took note that you categorized "A Fighter" to be of "Dems" origin.......I agree to the point that it's ("A Fighter")what the people need for a tough turnaround for our survival at this point in history........At 60 years of age, damn I have hounding concerns about my life savings..........Especially when I see who the front runners are and they are all willing to pardon the "Criminals of the Year" for their acts of treason.......And BTW, I've yet to see Bushco and the Hatchet Man say anything like "Sorry folks for the economy, but, but, but, we gonna make everything OK"..........
In any case, let's be realistic.....In God's name "we need a fighter". I don't care if he's a "Son of a Biscuit Eater" we need a fighter to restore our crumbling nation..........I've spent 18 years working abroad and maybe I'ma little more sensitive to the issues than most.........After all, I see and here the voices of the truth, the local national's opinions of the American People, the American Soldiers and "what the Fk are they doing?", to the windfalls of war............
I guess my point here is, if we wind up with Hillary Clinton as our savior, I will burn my citizenship............for I had rather be a third country national than to be labeled as a hypocrite...........I'm sick of it.........
by
Ernest (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 132 comments)
on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 at 9:16:10 AM
Kucinich is a fighter and if we unite and support him he can win. I just don't understand the left and the progressives. Kucinich has been walking the talk, sponsoring and proposing legislation and sticks to his principles. Why are so many believing the MSM and their pollsters? If our Founders believed the conventional wisdom, they never would have rebeled. Only about 5% of the general population supported the Revolution. Fighting the mightest Army and Navy on earth at the time. We can win this for Kucinich if we go out and organize. Don't just blog, organize!
by
Trainer12 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 48 comments)
on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 at 9:17:46 AM
I don't know enough about American politics to really have much of a sensible contribution, but what if Edwards were to gain steam like many are predicting, and then take on Kucinich as running mate? (When do they usually announce running mates?)
Does Edwards like Kucinich?
by
Peter Dearman (8 articles, 14 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 112 comments)
on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 at 9:43:18 AM
He's been to the Bilderberg Group and he, in his role at the CFR, co-authored a study maligning Putin for his 'aggressive' ways.... conveniently ignoring that Putin has been reacting to U.S. attempts to destroy his country. A lot of honor and truth there for John, Eh?
He is a tool of the elites. But hey! He's got a 'winning' smile.....
by
richard (0 articles, 4 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 728 comments)
on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 at 11:39:27 AM
Become a fighter. I'm sorry that the opportunity is in the GOP this election, but that's the way it is because Ron Paul, who was a Libertarian, says the way to correct the neocon Republican/neoliberal Democrat wars is to get back to the constitution. As the neocons have been either arrested or resigned because of bad policies the neo-lib Democrats have been supporting, this has created a vacuum or a blowback in the GOP which is being filled with rEVOLutionaries for Ron Paul. We are the regime change.
The Democrats boycotted FOX news for their first debate. FOX news is excluding Ron Paul. Why is FOX news afraid of Ron Paul more than the Democrats? Ron Paul and the rEVOLution are the fighters this election with "money bombs", blimps, their own coins, "infiltraiting" the GOP straw polls and organizing grassroots this election by WE THE PEOPLE IN THE NAME OF LOVE AND PEACE.
by
Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 304 comments)
on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 at 10:01:21 AM
(except possibly for Kucinich - no chance of winning- and Ron Paul - slightly less than no chance of winning). Both parties are simply middle management for the elites (you know, those folks with the $$ and who control the media). Americans are so stupid as to believe (the bulk of 'em anyway) that they actually have a choice. YOU get to CHOOSE from the hacks already CHOSEN FOR YOU. So, for me, the underlying premise of the article is fallacious.
The Post-Bush Regime: A Prognosis (By Richard K. Moore) 12/30/07 "In order to understand anything about American political affairs, it is necessary to have some understanding of who it is that really makes the decisions behind the scenes, and what their interests are. In this way we have some hope of identifying the hidden agendas being served by government actions and programs, and some hope of identifying the longer-term strategies that are in play.
It turns out—and informed people should already know this—that the U.S. is essentially owned and managed by a small clique of wealthy families—the ones who own and control the Federal Reserve. The Rockefellers are the obvious and well-known members of this clique, but there are others less well-known, not all American, and some whose identity remains to this day a carefully guarded secret. We don’t even know exactly who it is that’s running the show."
article continues at ICH
I suggest any who still think this is a battle between Democrats and Republicans read the article or any of the many others that quite accurately put 'paid' to the notion that party elections are either viable or relevant to what will actually happen in the future. Fascism and the 'Police State' are here already.... how obviously this is manifested may be slightly party-related but that won't change your status-to-be one whit, ....... serf.
by
richard (0 articles, 4 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 728 comments)
on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 at 11:53:11 AM
I like Richard K Moore, too. The Tweedledee & Tweedledum
theory is pretty much the gruesome truth of the matter, though most Americans will resist it to the bitter end. You put it quite simply & accurately: "YOU get to CHOOSE from the hacks already CHOSEN FOR YOU."
Despite the admirable simplicity & obvious relevance of this formulation, Americans prefer to argue about which candidate is "the best" -- as though the minor differences between candidates were remotely as important as the fact that we only get to chose among pre-chosen hacks (ie, reliable pawns of big business & the military-industrial complex).
Part of the disease of American politics is this fetish of always thinking in terms of "candidates." Voting should not be a matter of individuals or personalities. It should be done in terms of parties, not candidates. And each party should make clear exactly what its analysis of society is, and how its specific program addresses what it sees as the most serious deficiencies. Each party should try to educate its constituents; to help them understand political dynamics in terms relevant to its social analysis.
American politics doesn't do any of that. Neither party makes its social analysis explicit (because they're both parties of Wall St & the MIC); they both hide everything under banalities & cliches about "democracy" & "American leadership." Most people wind up voting for who the TV tells them is the "strongest leader." It's total bullsh*t, & doesn't deserve the slightest respect.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1087 comments)
on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 at 2:48:00 PM
will in a few weeks be yesterdays news. I'm not saying it will never come, but the U.S. is not ready to except socialism and Dennis is a dyed in the wool Socialist.
His domestic economic platform is somewhere left of Hugo Chavez. His understanding of our current macro economics embroilment is non existent.
Will one of the others take him on as vice presidential candidate? Not if they want to win. Would you chose a vice president running mate with a national poll rating of less than 1%?
To make noise, one can espouse whatever is on your mind. To make real change, one must first be elected on a platform that is acceptable to the majority.
by
Mike Folkerth (120 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 560 comments)
on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 at 12:15:56 PM
Please don't confuse liberalism & socialism -- they're not
at all the same thing. Kucinich is a liberal. He never suggests nationalizing major industries. He doesn't challenge private property rights. He doesn't advocate a centrally-planned economy, or any major re-organization of the US economy. He simply takes positions in some significant policy matters that seem "radical" only because they're opposed to a pure big-business agenda. Being antiwar doesn't make you a "socialist."
Kucinich's prescriptions are classic bourgois liberalism: support for labor unions, & advocacy of government social-spending programs funded by progressive taxation. The simple fact that he remains in the Dem Party -- which is a 100% capitalist party -- establishes clearly that he isn't threatening private property rights.
Chavez, for that matter, though to the left of Kucinich, is not clearly a socialist either. He's mainly using oil revenues to fund social spending programs. He's not moving to nationalize industries or expropriate private property from the rich. Private enterprise is not endangered in Venezuela -- it simply doesn't control 100% of government policy there, as it does here.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1087 comments)
on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 at 2:22:50 PM
One slight correction Rich, otherwise I agree with all...
Kucinich IS suggesting the nationalization of one major industry, the healthcare industry, and I happen to agree with this approach and disagree with my candidate on it.
by
Steven Leser (189 articles, 35 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1291 comments)
on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 at 2:52:25 PM
I don't know if I'd exactly call it a "nationalization" -- that term usually refers to the state taking over an industry (or group of companies), ie, seizing the assets outright. Sometimes compensation is offered to the owners in a "nationalization;" sometimes not. (When Cuba nationalized foreign-owned companies in 1959, they offered compensation, for example. The US govt refused the terms.)
With Kucinich & health care, he's not exactly proposing the direct seizing of health company industry assets. I think he's suggesting restructuring health care in a way that would bypass or replace the private insurers. // But that might amount to much the same thing. So your point is well taken. // Thanks for pointing that out.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1087 comments)
on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 at 8:43:45 PM
If we really want to change this country back to what the founders envisioned, we will all vote for Dennis Kucinich! We are the people who elect the president. If we want Dennis, we have to fight for him. Only he has every correct stance on every issue.
Do you really want to have a health care plan that is no better than we have now? Then don't vote for Dennis. Do you really want the war to go on and on and on??? Then don't vote for Dennis. Do you really want the eternal outpouring of jobs from this country to other countries? Then don't vote for Dennis. Do you want the resident of the White House to get off scot free after commiting so many heinous crimes and misdemeaners? Then don't vote for Dennis.
But if you care about your country, get off your butts and work for Dennis. He will win if we all vote for him!. He's been winning but the corrupt media refuse to report it. Ask ABC!!! They invalidated their own poll after he won it hands down twice!!!!! Get with the program and bring our country back.
by
Caronome (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 198 comments)
on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 at 12:25:19 PM
... that in order to do anything as a politician, you have to first be elected. Edwards is pushing the envelope about as hard as you can in a campaign and still be viable.
Without a crisis, FDR never gets elected in 1932 to implement his programs. Sometimes, I think people here would rather we nominate one failed candidate after another who tells us what we want to hear and have successive right wing administrations rather than have someone nominated who is a pragmatic populist/progressive.
Kucinich, Paul and everyone else other than the top two or three on each side are gone in 3-4 days. If progressives dont get on board to try to make sure one of those gone isn't Edwards, then we will get what we deserve.
by
Steven Leser (189 articles, 35 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1291 comments)
on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 at 1:39:07 PM
I usually look forward to reading ABS, and much of this one I appreciated, until it reached that combo corporate/MSM/neocon crafted meme-drift, and there suddenly tossing the whole frame as may be likened to tripping on a shoelace; it is thrown over. I was not suspecting this author to go there!
There is a good deal happening at the grassroots level that is not being covered at all in the MSM, and not nearly in proportion to its size and activeness on the net. There IS a revolution of sorts occurring, within, and boiling up out from under, both the Rep. and Dem. parties that the parties, all wrapped up in their established entanglements, also contribute to marginalizing, even excluding. My Principles do not give way so readily to be given up so easily. Considering the 'size,' reach, motivations and directives of these corporate/MSM "opponents" does not tempt me to surrender Principles and succumb to their chosen lowest common denominator, much less take their dictation. It is THEIR desire that Dennis Kucinich must not be elected (and spoil their profiteering 'party'), so it is in THEIR interest to cast memes into the public mind, as is their established, well patterened methodology, to try to paint Dennis Kucinich into the "fringes", marginal, inconsequential, unelectable..... ....wake up......WAKE UP!!! W A KE U P ! ! ! Open your EYES!!! Don't go to sleep on us like that!!! Us--- WeThePeople "us"---WE are the ones we have been waiting for, WE are the fighters that need to Be! It is US, each and every one of us that needs to be a fighter in this, and being that within us, go forward, undaunted, therefore more clearly aware, responsive, and resourcefully ACTIVE. Stand up and Be it! Don't call (wish/look/pray/cry...) for a saviour to be it FOR you! Be one of the "fighters" yourself, each one within yourself, and all together persevering, cutting a 'new' course, trailblazing, opening the way to bring on through a truly Principled candidate. Compared to what we have been living through, it is a whole new paradigm that we need, if we are to break our headlong rush into the gathered and yet gathering national and global disasters looming ahead. We couldn't just grab hold of someone good and toss'em up there, sink or swim!! We must cut the new course for it, if we are to have a place to turn aside from the established track, and before the oncoming trainwrecks begin, WE must fight our way through, trailblazing, and cut the new course to BRING it through! We must measure up and BE the ones we have been waiting for!
We cannot be much of anything we know if instead, we are letting ourselves be held preoccupied within confines cast and directed by artificial memes.
Take a look--- What if Dennis Kucinich WERE electable? Wouldn't that enable the globally and desperately needed new paradigm? After repeating that sticky meme so long, could you grasp it if you saw it, and contribute to letting it Be instead of continuing to repeat and add to, pumping up, that dadgum neo-con artists' crafty, opposing, all-and/self-disempowerment meme? The following is a sampling of elect-ability someone(s) has collected: http://pws.cablespeed.com/brianperkins/nationalpollresults.html
Dennis Kucinich is not "socialist" either. There is a significant difference between socialism and "Promoting the general Welfare". Promoting the general welfare is common sense, and as placed in the preamble, is one of the basic Principles governing the contextual framing of the entire Constitution. By pooling our resources, we can much more effectively promote the general Welfare to our mutual benefit. Our national system of highways is a good, concrete, visible example. We would not have all the general , mutual benefits of that without pooling our general resources to create and sustain it. Pooling our resources for a national system of Universal, not for profit, single payer healthcare will provide a great, multifaceted boost in promoting the general Welfare. This will not limit anyone for all will still be just as free to do and pay for whatever they may wish, in addition.
Social Security has served well, promoting the general Welfare. Universal public education is necessary to promoting the general Welfare. There are various things and means of general, mutual benefit, ways that we can provide for our mutual empowerment and sustainment through our pooled resources, which again promote, enhance, and increase the general Welfare. Unlike its false casting in the "nanny-state" meme, promoting the general Welfare is sensible and is certainly a much more civilized, more naturally compassionate and universally empowering system than the viscious dog eat dog world of every man for himself, sink or swim. Promoting mutual, sustainable empowerment is essential to the needed new paradigm. Ron Paul's copy of the Constitution seems to have left out this particular guiding Principle of promoting the general Welfare. This is a grave, and dangerously distorting error that should not be allowed to occur. This disregard of basic guiding Principle carries with it great and growing disregard for WeThePeople, us, for it is OUR general Welfare, as well as any natural regard for our general Welfare as a guiding Principle of our Constitution that is being left out in Ron Paul's version of the constitution. This is not conducive to empowering and sustaining a new paradigm.
The grassroots are aflame with the names of Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, but it is the more universally wholistic, as well as constitionally wholistic, mutually empowering sustainably balanced course steadily reflected with unflinching integrity and incorruptibility intrinsic to the history and nature of Dennis Kucinich that is truly representative of what is actually needed here and now. Will WeThePeople rise to the occaission? Will we measure up to the opportunity at hand? Will WeThePeople put forth the creative, resourceful, sustained trailblazing effort needed? (or sit back and excuse our collectively meme-filled selves into accepting "our choice" from one of the corporate/AIPAC, etc., invested selection.......?)
I will do whatever I can to promote the Universal general Welfare through active support of Dennis Kucinich. Not only is he a viable, elect-able candidate, he will represent, promote and foster what is in the hearts of the majority, and what is actually needed here and now. This is IT. It MEANS everything and therefore is WORTH everything contributed, contributing and yet to contribute in effort, to bring forward-------> Go for it! (-:G http://www.zianet.com/XLexcel/AppT99.html
by
G Achin (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 43 comments)
on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 at 5:54:33 AM
