 |
|
Add to My Group
|
August 3, 2007 at 13:20:55
The Likelihood of a Republican President in 2009 by David Swanson Page 1 of 3 page(s) |
|
 
|
By David Swanson America is quite likely to elect a Republican president in 2009. The first reason is that Republican election fraud has been well established since 2000. Bush and Cheney lost Florida, and therefore America, according to the recount completed by major media outlets after it was officially blocked by the Supreme Court. And they almost certainly would have lost by a much larger margin if not for the illegal purging of the rolls engaged in by Republicans. We've seen a growing array of tactics employed in several states in 2002, 2004, and 2006 to suppress and not count Democratic votes. Bush and Cheney clearly did not win in 2004, yet they are in office. And they have turned the U.S. Department of Justice into a wing of the Republican National Committee. But a Republican could win in 2008 honestly if the Democrats nominate the wrong sort of candidate and if the Democratic Congress makes the wrong moves in the next year and a half. Remember, as unpopular as Bush is, the Democratic Congress is even more unpopular. The most important issue in this election, as in other recent elections, will be Iraq. It will be even more important than in the past, and the public is even more in support of withdrawal. Because of this, it would be very, very difficult for Hillary Clinton or John Edwards to win the election. The Republicans can be expected to air on our televisions over and over and over again the choicest bits of the speeches these two Senators made when authorizing Bush to attack Iraq. They professed to believe the whole litany of lies about WMDs. A video interspersing these speeches with clips of Clinton or Edwards later denouncing Bush and Cheney's lies would make the Democratic nominee look unprincipled and dishonest. Sean Hannity of Fox News recently brought just such a video to a debate he took part in with Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson. Now, Edwards may not be entirely unprincipled and dishonest. He has apologized for his war vote and advanced progressive majority positions on a variety of issues. Sadly, that does not change the fact that it will be virtually impossible for him, having given that speech, to win this election.
I don't think Clinton has ever been hampered by any principles or honesty. You can take footage of her speeches from any given week and edit together bits of her passionately contradicting herself. Most recently she is decisively both for and against speaking to hostile foreign leaders. Clinton cannot possibly win an election. Once you factor out the states that are unlikely to vote for a woman, even a brave and principled woman much less someone like Clinton, this is a tough climb. When you then factor out those on the left who will actively campaign against her or stay home, it begins to look impossible. If you then consider the way in which Clinton will galvanize those on the right who despise her, it's all over.
The Democrats in Congress are opposed to impeachment, in part because Clinton is opposed to it, and in part because they think she'll solve our nation's woes once elected. But they're also opposed because they think impeachment would galvanize their opponents. Nothing would do that as well as nominating Clinton. In contrast, forcing the Republicans to defend Bush and Cheney for the next year and a half would actually benefit the Democrats tremendously. Meanwhile, Clinton is not only unlikely to win, but has already committed to keeping the occupation of Iraq going until the end of her second term. Force her to admit that again in October 2008, and you can start singing the Republican Homeland National Anthem.
Now, Barack Obama did not vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq. But he has voted many times to fund the occupation. He has given speeches in support of doing so. He supports keeping open the possibility of aggressively attacking Iran, including with nuclear weapons. He has proposed launching an illegal aggressive attack on Pakistan. He, like Clinton and Edwards, does not favor a swift and complete end to the occupation of Iraq. The peace activists already planning to protest the Democratic Convention will only be energized if the nominee is Obama. Numerous researchers and scholars are already predicting a Democratic loss if the Democratic Party does not take a strong stand for getting out of Iraq. Obama will not do that. And, on top of this, he'll lose the white-racist vote.
Obama, unlike Clinton and Edwards, is not hopelessly handicapped, but he will not win if the direction he pursues resembles even remotely the path he has been taking for the past several months.
But if all of this is as obvious as I am suggesting, why, then, are these candidates ahead in the polls? Well, the other candidates who have announced thus far, and some of those still rumored to be considering jumping in, are not without their own shortcomings. And those with the best records on Iraq, like Congressman Dennis Kucinich, are effectively shut out by the media. There is a pattern well established in this country of the corporate media working very hard to nominate Democrats destined to lose. This is not all a conscious conspiracy. The media does simply favor those Democrats who most resemble Republicans. The problem is that voters don't share this taste. The Democrats' base prefers strong and principled Democrats to Republican-lite. And that tiny sliver of voters who swing between parties also prefers candidates with strong principles who stand up for what they believe in. Less important is what specifically they are standing up for.
Those Democrats who vote in primaries are very obedient to the media's dictates. But general election voters are not voting as strategists and pundits. They're voting as citizens. And the biggest determining factor is whether they stay home or are motivated to go and vote.
Democrats could win in 2008 by taking the following steps:
Requiring paper ballots in every election, and election oversight by non-partisan officials.
Impeaching and removing Alberto Gonzales, and establishing strict oversight of the Justice Department.
Taking strong and swift action on Iraq and impeachment. Over three-quarters of Democrats want Cheney impeached, and the demand for Cheney and Bush's impeachments will only grow over the coming year and a half if not answered. When the Democrats moved to impeach Nixon they then won the biggest victories in recent history. When they took the impeachment of Reagan off the table, they lost. 230 years of impeachment efforts tells the story. It always benefits a political party to push for impeachment, successfully or otherwise. The only exception is the Clinton impeachment, which was unique in terms of the public's opposition to it, which was apparent from the start. Even so, the Republicans held onto both houses of Congress and the White House. And Al Gore was so put on the defensive that he chose Lieberman as a running mate and campaigned as if he'd never met Bill Clinton.
The Democratic leadership in Congress should announce immediately that because all useful bills are vetoed, they are going to solve our nation's problems by other means:
First, they should announce that there will be no more bills to fund the occupation of Iraq. Then, unless Bush chooses to fund the occupation illegally, he will need to bring all troops and mercenaries and contractors home. He already has much more than enough funding to do that.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 28 comments |
|
All correct, excellent, but..
wrong perception, unfortunately. Dems do not want to win. They want to lose. They want the GOP President. They wanted that way since Y2000. That is why they drumbeat the losing candidates. That is why they do not do impeachment. That is why they are sometimes more hawkish than GOP. They are playing their part and they are doing it very well. Otherwise- a very good article and the strategy is perfect. Too bad, the wrong commanders are commanding this army. by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 3, 2007 at 1:51:01 PM  (0+)
|
|
Fantastic article David
I agree, and my friends and I have been thinking that the Dems are going to lose by political stupidity. They are going to listen to the corporate media spin, and act accordingly. I don’t think they are listening to the base at all even though this is the period in a campaign where they should be leaning left. by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 3, 2007 at 2:59:07 PM (0+)
|
|
Count on it ...
... and guess who will be the VP? jeb It's obvious that if we even get to the elections, which some have speculated might not even happen, but suppose we do, and before then we get the 2nd 9/11. This time bush rushes to the rescue, all the perps are captured and Wa-La the Republicons look like hero's again, we attack Iran (because you know evidence will emerge that Iran was behind this all along), add the rigged elections, the weak so-called opposition party candidate and you have four more years of HELL! I phoned into C-SPAN the other day and asked why when you listened to the callers into C-SPAN that a good 80% either are choosing Kucinich or Paul as their choice, Gravel is in there too, and the disconnect with National polls that don't even put them on the radar screen? She answered that was a "mystery" ... by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 3, 2007 at 8:48:39 PM (0+)
|
|
what if....
Great article David, But what about Waxman's committee, Kucinich after the truth like a bulldog on the Tillman murder with the facts leading straight to the White House? Headlines for Kucinich that the lamestream media can't squelch? What about some moment for Kucinich like that of Ron Paul facing down Giulliani on the crap about "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here?" What if impeachment actually happens because we the people demand it? What if Gonzales is impeached? In normal times politics is volatile and unpredictable this far from election day. These are not normal times. There is some kind of paradigm shift in the works. If an earthquake is rumbling under the foundations of both political parties and the press and all the pollsters, pundits and twenty-four news circuses, are we likely to be seeing a completely alien political landscape by November of 2008? And what could it possibly look like? by Sheila Jackson (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 133 comments) on Friday, Aug 3, 2007 at 9:02:56 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Hi Sheila
I may be naïve but I'm with you Sheila. I do think that the Democrats are going to feel the severe heat of public discontent between now and September at a level they have never have felt before. I think they will proceed with the impeachment of Gonzales, and will certainly press forward with their investigations about the prosecutor firings, Pat Tillman's death, the secret spy in program, and other administration wrongdoing. by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Aug 4, 2007 at 6:00:20 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Naivete and paradigm shifts
Hi John, I can't see clearly how we can prevent the corporate annointing of Clinton or Obama. But, having been born and raised in a non-technical time it is difficult for me to understand or evaluate the effect of the web on the process. I hope what we see in our own neighborhoods can be attributed to the influence of a venue where ordinary voices can be heard. Here in Greenville there are things happening that give me a paradigm shift feeling in my bones. There are young people on the streets with Ron Paul literature. Signs that read, "The Ron Paul Revolution" are appearing at intersections and interstate ramps. On my way to work a couple of weeks ago I saw a red pickup truck with a large two sided-billboard on the back reading, "The Ron Paul Revolution." My friend Ted is a Ron Paul supporter and I am a Dennis Kucinich supporter. Ted said to me a few days ago that he thought Ron and Dennis were cut from the same cloth (not his exact words), but that would be the far right and the far left coming together for a new political alignment. Maybe we could call that new political alignment, "Telling the Truth Works." Ron Paul's support appears to be coming from the huge interest he enjoyed on the net because of his comment at the republican debate here in South Carolina when he courageously and truthfully said, "They came over here because we are over there!" The corporate media analysis of that event and Giulianni's wildly applauded response that, "As someone on the ground on 9/11 he had never heard such an absurd statement," was that Guilianni had knocked one out of the park. Now Ron Paul is getting more donations from the military than any other candidate. And has as much money in the bank as John McCain. Is McCain's pro-war campaign on the wane and Ron Paul's anti-war campaign on the ascent perhaps because the wall of corporate media monopoly is cracking? I fervently, perhaps naively, hope so. That would mean we make a difference. by Sheila Jackson (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 133 comments) on Sunday, Aug 5, 2007 at 5:16:06 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: elections
I agree if we run Hillary or Obama we will loss. THere is no way the southern foke will vote for either. I keep praying that Al Gore will come back. by beccy (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments) on Sunday, Aug 5, 2007 at 7:49:36 PM (0+)
|
|
hate to bust bubbles ...
Indeed, the Tillman case might be the most egregious in a long list of egregious crimes committed by these most vile of men ... but that's the point isn't it? What makes you think that after all they've gotten away with that the public will believe that the very top people in the White House ordered the murder of their highest profile soldier? After all, bush has already admitted he violated FISA, that alone should impeach him, yet ... ? Anyway I love your optimism. Indeed there should be not one front-runner that ever supported this illegal invasion. Kucinich should be the champion. But my dark, deep cynicism tells me they'd kill him first. by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 3, 2007 at 9:31:13 PM (0+)
|
|
The sweetest revenge: Al Gore and Howard Dean
Re-elect Al Gore and this time, make it stick. And we all know that Dean's campaign was sabotaged but this time fight back. The one thing this country can't take is another goddamned republican president, and yes, both the language and the lack of a capital are intentional, because whatever respect I may've had for the regressive party, it's gone now. you morons wanted a strong leader, well you got one- let's hope he doesn't go totally insane and stage another 9-11, maybe with a nuclear device in a major city. This isn't any more far-fetched than the scenario than the one that David projected, and I, for one, will not be voting for any of the present candidates. If this is the best the party has to offer, god help us. by Chuck Garner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 118 comments) on Friday, Aug 3, 2007 at 11:03:46 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Agreed
Let's hope Gore decides he is critically needed... and jumps in. by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Aug 4, 2007 at 6:01:35 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Strong leader
We don't have a strong leader. We have a mentally ill person who they cleaned up. He is nothing but a losser. He just distroys everything he touchs. by beccy (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments) on Sunday, Aug 5, 2007 at 7:54:24 PM (0+)
|
|
next election
might end up having an extremely low turnout. My own personal feelings, aside from logical considerations, is "Screw the whole thing! Let it all go to hell and then we'll pick up the pieces." Sure, many will say that's what the fascists want, but people ARE disgusted with it. Personally, I'm tired of hearing all the people who keep arguing against independents and third party candidates, which I think is the only salvation possible -- if that doesn't work then it doesn't matter who else gets in: it's going to fall apart anyway, and will all have to be rebuilt from scratch from the bottom up, from whatever 'scratch' might still be left. The Titanic is heading for the iceberg, and the band plays on. Some people notice and try to get the captain to change course -- and he refuses. Then all the officers on ship they try to get to relieve the captain refuse to change course too. Most importantly, you can't get enough passangers to look out the porthole and 'mutiny', and they just keep dancing. So look for a lifeboat -- what else can you do? I am not at all optimistic for the short term. People COULD change it around easily -- but I don't think they will. by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Friday, Aug 3, 2007 at 11:34:11 PM (0+)
|
|
BOHICA
Spying approved by Gonzales, and Director of Nattional Intelligence -- the administration. This is a sick joke. This is the %$#**@** Democrats! Obama want to attack Iran and Pakistan -- Hilary want's to use nukes -- Obama says no nukes and then changes his mind. (See Hillary's Nuclear 'Tough-Gal-ism' and Bomber Obama: My Own Personal Terror War, among others.) Just how many time can you be stabbed in the back before you realize the Democrats are as fascist as anyone else? It doesn't matter if a Republican or Democrat gets in -- they will both kill us all. They are all garbage. Initial approval by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The administration relented to Democrats leery of Gonzales by adding McConnell to the oversight. [...] _FISA Court review within 120 days. The final Democratic plan had called for court review to begin immediately and conclude within a month of the surveillance starting _The law to expire in six months to give Congress time to craft a more comprehensive plan. The White House initially wanted the bill to be permanent. [...] by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Saturday, Aug 4, 2007 at 12:02:03 AM (0+)
|
|
There's another reason that Republicans might win.
There's another reason that Repubilcans could win: because of people like me and because of people like you. First, the chance is negligable that I will vote for either a Democrat or a Repubican. For that to happen someone who I've never heard of would have to run for office and become the nominee and that's not likely to happen. Second, I believe others will come to agree with me that to vote either Democrat or Republican will not get us out of the fix we're in and so they too will vote for someone else. Third, most Americans who do not vote for Republicans will vote for a Democrat. But a Democrat won't win because there will be enough people like me who will vote for an independent or third party candidate that a Republican will get more votes than anyone else. Now this outcome can be avoided but it is very unlikely because it would require a lot of work from people like you. The way it can be avoided is for people who are inclined to vote Democrat give up their illusions and find a qualified independent candidate to vote for. If you say it can't happen you are probably right. And if you are right the Repubicans will win, because like I said, I am not going to vote for a Democrat and a lot of other people won't either. Either citizens are going to learn to vote for what they really believe in, or they are going to lose every time. Every time. by Mark A. Goldman (81 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 243 comments) on Saturday, Aug 4, 2007 at 12:35:37 AM (0+)
|
|
An addendum...
As an addendum to my comment above I might add these links: www.gpln.com/kucinichvscheney.htm www.gpln.com/bestronbeyourself.htm www.gpln.com/timesawasting.htm by Mark A. Goldman (81 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 243 comments) on Saturday, Aug 4, 2007 at 12:44:47 AM (0+)
|
|
I would vote for a good candidate
but not for a party, and not for a fascist, regardless of party -- and right now that's everyone the mass media, and therefore the public, apparanlty, deem to be 'front-runners'. I have reached the point where I no longer think that Republicans in office are worse than Democrats -- it's just the 'style' of fascism which would differ somewhat. This last outrage, spying on people without warrant, on Gonzeles's say so -- blatently unconstitutional -- is undountedly part of that 'important people's business' which is preoccupying congress so thay can't impeach. Indeed -- much more important to let Bush spy on people illegally. Essentially, (party) politics is dead, and it's killing everything else. We can't resurrect it -- we can't fix things through politics: it's going to take the people organizing -- some form of revolution. I wrote a few years back we could fix things the easy way or the hard way -- but that time is gone: now we have only the hard way left. Not that even the hard way must all that hard -- but it will be because in general people still don't understand what needs to be done. It's like you call "Hey, the town hall is on fire" and everybody just stands there -- no bucket brigades. Soon the whole downtown is in flames. They decided to do it the hard way -- that means we have to rebuild it all. In any case, the prime requisite is organizing, and that doesn't just mean people like the ones here running around, but most people waking up so if someone says "Hey -- there's a meeting' they will break their butts to get there and be involved. It means many of those who have had their ears glued to right wing radio and Fox news and CNN will turn the the damned things off and go find out what the truth is instead of just mouthing talking points. It means they have to work at it. There's no substitute for that. It means that there is a lot more to do than just voting, because by the time you get to vote, honest or no, it's too late: the game has already been rigged. Voting is just treating a symptom, like taking aspirin for a fever, not treating the disease. So you bring the fever down? Good -- fever can damage you, but even without a fever the disease will kill you. We can't just 'find' a qualified candidates -- we have to develop and field them. Do it yourself -- that's what democracy is. I guess your second link should be http://www.gpln.com/bestrongbeyourself.htm by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Saturday, Aug 4, 2007 at 1:28:13 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: government
At age 30 I returned to school. I remember my government class, the government is there to control us. I learned to call my representative and write letters. Sence joining a union I can to realize how important it is to take part in the process. When the 2000 election was stolen I started to pay attention. I have writen my representative, emailed my representative and taken part in demonstrations. When the 2004 election was stolen It broke my heart, because I saw first hand how the republicans stole the election. I continue to call and send emails but I am feeling pretty hopeless. by beccy (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments) on Sunday, Aug 5, 2007 at 8:04:28 PM (0+)
|
|
Republican/Democrat, Blood/Crip...
... same thing. Political parties are nothing more than Washington DC street gangs, and a candidate's "tier" is their blood-rank, how many dirty deeds they've done dirt-cheap for the party. It's such a media-circus I'm doing all three: Laughing, crying and choking. I've lived in NYC all of my life so he're my take on the "top tier" (choke) NY candidates... Giuliani: Wall Street Rudy. (He's moved up the food chain, considerably, thanks to 9/11.) I've already endured his reign of terror and am not planning to endure it again, especially on a much larger scale. He's like ten Coney Island street gangs rolled into one dude. Get in his way, get nuked. Attack dogs are useful but not what we need in the Whitehouse. Why so many people support him is beyond me. They need to get out more, visit NYC, speak with the locals. Clinton: Wall Street Hillary. Bilderberger so I hear. Fortune Magazine's July 9th cover-girl, WoW, business loves her! She's one of my honorable senators. What did she do for the average-joe New Yorker again? I wrote to her several times, never received the courtesy of a reply, not even a "get-lost" formletter. (At least Schumer replied with polite formletters and forwarded my issues to the relevant bureaucrats.) What do so many "off-Wall Street" people see in her again? They need to get out more, visit NYC, speak with the locals. Maybe it's just the circles in which I travel, the company I keep, family, etcetera, but I don't know any New Yorkers who support either of these gang-bangers. The folks I know just aren't wealthy enough. The consensus is for Ron Paul, even from the Democrats, with the remaining supporting Kucinich. So maybe there will be a Republican president in 2009, but if it's Rudy I'm outta here, and if it's not Paul I'd rather have one of the Democrats. But I wish we could just have an American president, not a Republican/Democrat or other political street gang affiliate. by Co6aka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 68 comments) on Saturday, Aug 4, 2007 at 5:01:55 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Ron Paul is a corporatist
You can't be a libertarian, and not be a corporatist. by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Aug 4, 2007 at 6:07:21 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: RE: Ron Paul
Ron Paul is the only candidate willing to take a principled stand on the wars of empire and evisceration of the constitution. Where are the other choices? by Ed Encho (12 articles, 20 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 438 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Aug 4, 2007 at 10:34:11 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Corporatist...
Borrowing from Wikipedia: "Historically, corporatism ... refers to a political or economic system in which power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, social, cultural, and professional groups. These civic assemblies ... are unelected bodies with an internal hierarchy; their purpose is to exert control over their respective areas of social or economic life. Thus, for example, a steel corporation would be a cartel composed of all the business leaders in the steel industry, coming together to discuss a common policy on prices and wages. When much political and economic power rests in the hands of such groups, then a corporatist system is in place." "For the bureaucrat, the world is a mere object to be manipulated by him." "In the bureaucracy, the identity of state interest and particular private aim is established in such a way that the state interest becomes a particular private aim against other private aims." by Co6aka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 68 comments) on Saturday, Aug 4, 2007 at 1:24:03 PM (0+)
|
|
VOTE!
What is wrong with you people?! You are like children. Your vote hasn't counted for at least 7 years. What the hell makes you think it will count in the future. The hate-filled murderous thugs that now own the country will never give up the power they have created. If you want change then YOU are the one that must change! What is wrong with you people. by joed (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 49 comments) on Saturday, Aug 4, 2007 at 8:00:31 AM (0+)
|
|
The System.
. “As long as we remain shackled to a system of these two thoroughly corrupt political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, there seems little hope for national salvation.” Dave Lindorff. The key word here is system. We have a legalized system of bribery and self-perpetuating corruption that can’t be reformed, and can’t be beaten within the existing corrupt laws and cunningly crafted political framework. We simply can’t beat the system by operating within the system, because no matter who we vote for, corruption wins. While Democratic Representatives dazzle us with trivialities, Bush declares himself dictator. The obvious solution is a third party, but does anyone really think our system rulers will allow that to happen? They have all economic, political, police and military power, and if Iraq is any indication, they won’t hesitate to declare Martial Law and kill millions of Americans to keep their wealth and power. We must find some way to work outside the system, that doesn’t provoke violent retaliation. One way to do that is to support a candidate that the system has shunned. The system and media shun Dennis Kucinich. Our enemy’s, enemy could be our only hope to dismantle the system. We could form our own Independent party, and ask Dennis Kucinich to lead it. . by rabblerowzer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 227 comments) on Saturday, Aug 4, 2007 at 8:08:55 AM (0+)
|
|
This Article Nails It. Now To Make Our Congregation Listen..
"And those with the best records on Iraq, like Congressman Dennis Kucinich, are effectively shut out by the media." You know, we the people could change this if we start getting more and more vocal in our refusal to vote "Republican Lite" and our insistence that Kuccinich and others be given coverage and equal time. Anyhoo, I'm not voting for a Republican Lite - and if you ask me, they're not that "lite" bluepilgrim. what in the heck does BOHICA mean?. I have some idea. Bend Over...something.... by RCG (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 348 comments) on Saturday, Aug 4, 2007 at 12:19:53 PM (0+)
|
|
So This is How They #%$#(%#$% Repay Us????!!!!
The Democrats just sold us out, again. Senate Democrats Cave - Agree To Give Bush More Power To Spy On Americans Than Ever Below is the comment I left about the democrats on the Crooks And Liars Site. I think opednews readers need to consider this as well and I hope that you will. --------------------- P.S. We didn't elect this rat basturds so that they could help the republicans continue to get away with crime, to continue their agenda, and to continue to shred away at our rights and civil liberties - and to continue to sh*t on the U.S. Constitution - DID WE? by RCG (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 348 comments) on Saturday, Aug 4, 2007 at 1:14:34 PM (0+)
|
|
They lost the day ...
The Demoquits lost the White House the day the Demoquits caved in to not only refund the war but allow an esculation of it. by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Saturday, Aug 4, 2007 at 1:15:54 PM (0+)
|
|
We the People
Bohica: bend over, here it comes again. (Mike Malloy was saying that all the time for a while. Yeah - WtP can do all of this: the power is there. The difficulty is that "we" are not really we, but you and me and him and her, and the guy down the road -- all individuals, and all with different knowledge, world views, and inclinations. No revolution ever has everyone involved or approving of course, so it could be termed as "critical mass". I don't know how many that has to be. Maybe as few as 5% to 20% actively, with some larger portion in passive support. In a successful union strike most everyone stays from work, but the organizers and picketers are much fewer. "Leaders" or agitators -- what they call 'X-factor' people, generally run about 5% in any culture, from what I've read. Many people will live through some change and years later ask 'what happened, and why didn't anyone tell me about this?'. Depends on how you define x-factor, though. I would not say they are all 'type-a' or entrenpreneurs, although I suppose some of them are fascists, but more the people who 'get it'. Smart, aware, take initiative, creative, visionary (see the big picture), systems thinkers, organizers, cantankerous, rebels, -- like that. They are what tyrants call the troublemakers. But people can also learn to be x-factor, or be 'pushed' into x-factor mode. That's what some of leadership development is about, but it's also what the fascist society represses, from early childhood. That's a key part of the struggle. Thing is, it really is up to the people: if they don't activate themselves when the time comes and the 'winds starts to blow', then nothing will happen. The society has to be ripe for it. The x-people have to do a few things: they have to agitate and try to wake people up; they have to be ready to 'herd' the masses when and if they start moving; they have to be ready with plans for the new 'order of things', and they have to have patience and understand the underlying forces and how long it takes for real change. To do it right, they also have to willing and able to step out of the way when the time comes, as they are overtaken by the -- call them the 'y-people' who don't 'get it' on their own or motivate themselves, but who will latch on to it and carry it forward when they become 'converts'. They might well go off in some weird direction, not understanding the root principles, using their charisma and energy towards a new situation -- but not an optimum one. This latter -- I'm not trying to insult people, but to give my frank take on it -- are exemplified by the Ron Paul libertarians. They have some of the picture, but miss some very imortant things. Individual liberty is good, but they miss the principles of the 'social contract' and systems thinking, and don't see how their ideal will shoot us right back into fascism at some point in the future. Libertarianism is, in fact, where I see the greatest danger if we get past the immediate crisis. That's the great danger of a Republican president -- that he will adopt the libertarian PoV, and extreme privatization -- not like the current gangsters do, but in the sense of social darwinism. That will augment the class schisms and lead to some other gangs taking over. The other danger is if the 'liberals' win, and turn so 'socialistic' that personal freedom is lost: a Borg Collective. This terrifies the libertarians, of course, who see no higher good than individual freedom, even if it's chaotic. There are few people who understand that we not just a 'happy medium', but a transcendence of such obsolete labels and ideology. Anarchism is close to the real answer, but many equate that with chaos -- which it is not -- but that shows how badly it is understood, and understanding that is also understanding why both the conservatives and liberals oppose it , one fearing their own loss of control as individual tyrants, 'tyranny of the masses' and chaos, and the other fearing loss of control from individal freedom (not 'majority rule'), lack of 'political correctness, and lack of 'unity'. A major and persisting problem has always been that the common people not only look for real and good leaders, they can't recognize them as such -- much as they could not recognize Bush as a sociopathic tyrant. To recognize a true leader means one has to understand what leadership really is -- and if most people could do that we would not be in this fix, and, in fact, have very minimal need for leaders since they would know how to lead themselves -- which is what democracy requires. Real leaders act in behalf of a group with real leadership, which is a quality of the group, not of individuals. The best leader in the world can't properly lead a pack of wolves or a flock of sheep -- or a bag of beans. It's doubtful that the current generation will find their way out this: they are already crippled. What we might be able to do is find some reasonable 'holding pattern' and a set of circumstances necessary to allow and to develop a future generation to be competent as democratic human beings. This means revamping the entire system of child-rearing and education so we stop raising kids to be future fascists -- either bosses, enablers, or victims -- all necessary parts of the fascist system and culture. That's the medium-term goal -- to make the 'ground' for democracy fertile and raise true citizens who have the level of awareness and cultural habits and assumptions needed for self-government. Is it possible for the current generations to learn this -- to transform themselves or be transformed? I wont say it's not at all possible, but it's unlikely: more likely is that it might become a 'fad', although fads are quite shallow, and can disappear as fast as they come. by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Saturday, Aug 4, 2007 at 1:25:46 PM (0+)
|
|
David, one addition to your list of charges: Treason
Within hours of the attack on the World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001, the Bush administration announced it was the work of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. By July 11, 2007, Michael Chertoff was telling us the United States continues to be at risk of attack. Over the last five years, Bush and Cheney have squandered the goodwill of the world, along with the lives of over 3,000 U.S. troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi women and children. Bush and Cheney's diversion of weapons, troops and money from the pursuit of those who attacked us, to his oil war, has given aid and comfort to those that attacked the U.S. Such acts constitute Treason. One courageous member of the House needs to file a (Rule 604) motion of impeachment against Bush and Cheney for Treason. by Samuel Bryan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 168 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Aug 4, 2007 at 6:35:53 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
