Hasn't anyone stopped to wonder why we have been subjected to such a prolonged presidential campaign? It began over a year ago and is only getting more intense as we get closer to the actual primary elections.
If one stands back and evaluates the situation one can only conclude the debacle taking place before our very eyes is merely smoke to shield us from the truth. While each of these individuals are parading before us we see they are all of the same mold. They all stand for “change”, yet not a single one talks about the devastation that has been done to our country. Not a single one, save Dennis Kucinich, and they are making certain he doesn't get his word out.
Has no one taken note that none of these candidates who are allowed to be heard mention the devastation done to the Constitution, civil rights, “free trade” agreements, Presidential Signing Statements, Presidential Directives, illegal wiretaps, and all of the other real changes that have taken place to us and our country? If these are not mentioned, what changes can these individuals make that will make a difference to us and our nation?
On the Republican side, if there remains such a side, they talk about things such as Christianity and its place in government, abortion, guns, war, and a host of other issues that make for great debate, however rarely have a “winner” as there are always two sides to each topic with no clear cut answer, but they make for good media stories and have been used effectively for decades by the political “right.”
On the Democrat side, again, if there remains such a side, the talk is primarily about gender and race, as the Democrats typically side for those who have had affirmative action legislation written for. This year is a big year because there is actually a woman and a minority running as candidates, giving the media propagandists a field day in their coverage.
Taking a look at the candidates and their speeches of how they will make changes when they get to the White House one must look at not only the person, but the people behind the person. After all, I do not believe a single American gives George W Bush credit for leading the destruction of our nation, even though he is the one who could easily be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity because he is supposedly the one responsible. It is the people behind him who have led us down the path of demise, people like Dick Cheney, Alfonso Gonzalez, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, et. al.
So, moving behind the speeches of the candidates and peeking at the people behind them will tell us more about the “changes” that will take place should one of them get into the White House.
Hillary Clinton. The people behind her tells us the only change she would make to the White House is her gender. Like most of the other leading candidates many of those behind her are members of the Council on Foreign Relations, the group of power elitists who have named every president after John F. Kennedy. As one would expect a vast number of people behind Senator Clinton were in the Bill Clinton Administration – Madeleine Albright, “Sandy” Berger, Lee Feinstein, Leslie Gelb, Richard Holbrooke, (all CFR members) just to name a few.
Barack Obama. Senator Obama's team is also comprised of CFR members along with members who served in the Clinton administration, namely, Richard Clarke, Jeffrey Bader, Gregory Craig, Ivo Daalder, Richard Danzig, and many others. This suggests the change these two would bring us.
John Edwards. Senator Edwards has been courting the CFR for several years, but possibly presents the most change of the three corporate leading candidates and this may be the reason the corporate media gives him less “sales” time.
John McCain Senator McCain has a plethora of Bush cronies in his camp, including Richard Armitage, Lawrence Eagleburger, Michael Green, Colin Powell, Brent Scowcroft, and many others. Also in his camp are Henry Kissinger, William Kristol and others who have visions of world dominance. This mindset is definitely not a change from the existing administration.
Mitt Romney. Governor Romney is the outsider of the Republican group whose primary position in this marathon campaign charade is to take up media time. He is being portrayed as the “car salesman” in order to taint his trustworthiness. The media doesn't have to work hard on this perception.
Rudolph Giuliani. The best thing the media can do with this candidate is not to cover him. The less he is in the news the more his poll number rise. The more he speaks the more they come down. He is trying hard to grab onto the coat tails of Ronald Reagan and has enlisted several members of the Reagan administration.
Mike Huckabee. Governor Huckabee is a lone-ranger in this campaign whose appeal is to make religion the pivotal point of government. Of course the media does not correct those who continue to say our nation was formed around religion. In fact, it was formed to separate government from religion, freeing people to have their own religious beliefs. His views, however, give the media the opportunity to not have to report on the demise of our government.
Ron Paul. Dr. Paul gives the media a great diversion. They give him some media time because he is actually in favor of giving our nation away to corporations through what has been coined “privatization”.
The one candidate who actually offers real change has not been covered at all by the corporate media propagandists – Dennis Kucinich. It is because of the changes he advocates the media has orders to not give any time to. When they have had to have him in debates they have not allowed him much opportunity to give his stance on issues. In the last debate he was allowed to be a part of Wolf Blitzer, CNN's chief propagandist, asked him about his viewing a UFO attempting to make him look like a kook. What Representative Kucinich should have said was that he, in fact, feels somewhat slighted because Ronald Reagan actually discussed of his viewing 2 UFOs.
On another instance a question was asked about the Iraq occupation and each of the candidates was asked to respond, except Kucinich who was ignored. Most likely he was ignored because he is so adamant on withdrawing all troops from Iraq and not considering another illegal invasion of Iran.
And how interesting that the two candidates who graciously answered the baited questions on UFO were both in favor of immediate withdrawal from Iraq if elected and had the best energy independence policies too.
by
Kevin Gosztola (212 articles, 114 quicklinks, 70 diaries, 811 comments)
on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 at 2:06:09 PM
The wasted vote argument....is naive at best. If you don't vote for DK then all your saying is that your willing to go on getting shafted. Why not start practicing the phrase "THANK YOU SIR MAY I HAVE ANOTHER' while grabbing your ankles.
But if we don't vote for (fill in the blank) then the republicans will win and it'll be the fault of everybody that voted for DK!
WRONG WRONG WRONG! It will be the DNC's fault for only producing one canidate with the guts- to stand up for the US - TO CHOOSE FROM!
Just think, if Obama Edwards or Clinton had the guts to actually stand up for us this wouldn't even be an issue! You could in clear conscience vote for any of them. But the "top tier" canidates are such cowards that they wouldn't even give verbal support to DK"s call to start IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS WHEN MORE THEN HALF THE COUNTRY WANTS BUSH/CHENEY IMPEACHED!
And these are the people we are suppose to trust to stand up for this country and constitution - when they proved as canidates they wouldn't. So why believe they will when they are elected president?
Why not just admit that your not willing to even think for yourself. After all if you LET MSM makes all your desicisions for you , you can later claim the Nurenburg defense "just doing what I was told". That kind of logic didn't wash back then and it doesn't wash now.
by
RLAnchors (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments)
on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 at 12:55:53 PM
If Dennis received $100 from everyone I have heard say they like Kucinich, but he doesn't have a chance he would have the most money in his warchest. Frankly, he is the only candidate that offers us any chance of regaining the democracy most of us grew up enjoying. My vote will in good conscience go for him, if the corporate thugs allow his name to be on the primary ballot.
by
Dennis Kaiser (14 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 230 comments)
on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 at 1:36:23 PM
This sure has been an interesting ride! I live in Texas, where Dennis has lost his opportunity to even be on the ballot because he is a man of integrity, and he will not support a nominee just because the man or woman is a Democratic candidate. He is unwilling to support one who will make war an instrument of foreign policy.
He is the only candidate who has the honesty and integrity that would be the breath of fresh air we all need. The media will have none of that, and dismisses him like yesterday's dirty clothes. He is principled, he is smart and he knows what it is like to be poor. He stands for all Americans, for Republicans and Democrats who wish for the USA to be a nation to be proud of, to be a leader in the efforts for nuclear disarmament and for peace. There is no other choice! Please support Kucinich!
by
treehugger (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments)
on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 at 7:47:26 PM
Nothing I am about to say here changes my support for Dennis Kucinich. His agenda for a return to National Banking (see his Federal Bank for Infrastructure Modernization) and his political stance as an ardent anti-Fascist fighter (which includes everything backing his "Strength through Peace" platform, save his opposition to the peaceful use of nuclear power) are matters of principle that make my support for his candidacy for the office of President unshakeable.
Still, I wish he had not made an issue of the Texas loyalty clause. Yes, of course, I understand the principle behind why he did this. But, given what's at stake, there might have been a better way to deal with this issue. For example, there are 13 Democrats in the House of Representatives from Texas he could have enlisted to begin addressing this.
Anyway, his adherence to principle notwithstanding, I simply wanted to make a comment about the art of picking battles. Seems there was much more to lose than ever could have been gained...
by
Tom Chechatka (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 51 comments)
on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 at 11:33:12 PM
Since we are discussing the argument about supporting the Democrats as the lesser evil, the comment I made about the previous article by Stephen Pizzo is relevant to the discussion also.
DISGUSTING APPROACH TO POLITICS
I am disgusted by this whole approach to political gamemanship, selecting the candidate you will vote for on the basis of calculating whether she or he can win and what candidate from the other party might win if he or she wins the nomination, instead of FIRST deciding whether to support a candidate on the basis of her or his stand on the issues and THEN considering electibility as a SECONDARY CONSIDERATION in chosing between candidate who are may be good candidates.
I agree with kevin Gosztola; I am going to vote for a Green Party candidate this year as I did in 2000 and 2004. Those rabid liberals who accuse the Greens of electing Bush ignore the fact that Gore won both the popular and electoral vote and would have been President if the Supreme Injustices had not halted the vote counting and appointed Bush. It also ignores the fact that if the Rethugs had not systematically disenfranchised eligible African American voters in Florida, Gore would have received around 90,000 additional votes in Florida, a number which would have dwarfed the few hundred vote margin Bush received after the black robed, Neanderderthal buffons on the Supreme Court ordered the vote counting halted and appointed Bush. It also ignores the fact that the Repugnantcans would have simply stolen more votes if the official vote count had favored Gore.
But more importantly, it is difficult to understand how anyone can think it is not a waste of time and energy to work on electing Democrats after the electorate DID elect them to a majority in Congress in 2006 and Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table as her first act as the new speaker. It has always been thus since at least as far back as the 1940's when the majority of Democrats voted for the Taft Hartley Act. Can't you see that the lesser evil crumbs we get by electing Democrats will never be enough to justify the time and effort we put in. Since he results of electing Democrats will never be enough above zero to justify the effort, working to build a third party is the only alternative we have left. In spite of all the people who argue that a third party cannot win under the winner take all elections in the United States, and although it will take time to build up a third party to the point where it can displace one of the two corporate parties, a course of action that does not promise immediate gratification is still better than a course of action that will NEVER produce significant progress.
Your article opens by asking, "Hasn't anyone stopped to wonder why we have been subjected to such a prolonged presidential campaign?"
Until you asked, I hadn't. But, thinking about your question, I would submit this answer for consideration.
First, the cable news outlets being so many, are hungry for "hot news" to help draw viewers. The national discontent with the political landscape being what it is, there might have been commercial opportunity to moving up the start of the presidential campaign season.
Not a bad thing, really, when considering remarks you made to begin your article's second paragraph: "... the debacle taking place before our very eyes is merely smoke to shield us from the truth."
Maybe so. However, with the campaign season beginning so early and more highly charged citizens discovering which candidate to support, opportunities available online, beyond the smokescreen, open an avenue where highly charged supporters can rally late-comers to the political process.
This is particularly so during primary season, when only a small fraction of voters actually get out and vote.
I hope you will consider this, because your energy might better be spent somehow building upon the support Dennis already has gained, and rallying new supporters to his integrity and principle, which your article does very well to distinguish.
This matter of Dennis' integrity and principle -- win or lose -- is all that really matters, don't you think?
So, get the word out where it really stands to matter, because here, you are just preaching to the choir. (No offense.)
by
Tom Chechatka (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 51 comments)
on Thursday, January 24, 2008 at 12:47:54 AM
7 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
