If I am faced with choosing between bad or worse on election day I will stay home. The gas I save by not going to the polls I will spend on food stores and BBs. As the media stranglehold on our political process tightens its evil grip I see a sadness and disgust in those that realize the severity of our plight.

When MLK was killed the cities burned and people took to the streets. Our nation has been looted and destroyed , where is the outrage ? If we accept a McCain or Hitlery we deserve more genocide, more inflation, less freedoms more stormtroopers and the complete absence of hope.

by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 463 comments [24 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 8:15:10 AM

  (0+)

Well John that is exactly what you'll get if you stay home. Hillary may be a corporate democrat(she wasn't my first choice), but don't forget we were far better off under Bill Clinton then we were under Bush. And not only that, but with Hillary in there(or Obama), at least we'll have an ear in Washingon rather than a brick wall. McCain is staying the course, and he will continue to stay the course if elected. He's the perfect Hoover and regardless of what the republicans say about him, he's a devout neocon. That said, why help them along in their destruction by doing nothing? Placing any democrat in there to replace Bush is a clear message to the republicans that we are sick and tired of their shennanigans. Ignoring the election or voting green will not send that message but instead reaffirm the right wing belief that Americans think fascism and the corporate ripoff are just fine!.

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 8:42:45 AM

  (0+)

In one breath you approve of the Clinton legacy of globalisation and its concurrent severe damage to our economy, our working class, our childrens future and the throwing of thousands off welfare to balance a budget. That is quite a step , unfortunately it is a step off a cliff. As long as we fail to understand that the lesser of two evils is still an evil we are lost. 

As to Rob claiming:

Now, where does the green come into the picture? Green, as in green party. I didn't have any problem with Ralph Nader running in very blue states, where he did not put a Gore or Kerry victory at risk. But running as a green, the green giant led people in Florida and Ohio to vote green, for Nader, and that, my angry progressive friends, cost the planet and the United States dearly, leading to the election of the most despised man in the history of the world.

Well that is quite a mouthful there Mr. Kall. In one breath you deny Nader's constitutional right to run for the office of the President, excepting of course where you think it safe for him to do so. Then, as if this nonsense was not sufficient for one day, you claim some hold upon the voters choices, whether in Florida, Ohio or elsewhere. Despite your presumption as to whom a voter will cast a ballot I fail to see how you do this. Those who voted for Nader, and I was emphatically one of those, would suddenly cast a ballot for Gore or Kerry, as if by magic they cast their politics to the winds.

Rather you keep some vestige of political acumen and note the irregularities in the vote, the unequal distribution of voting machines between GOP districts and Democratic ones. Perhaps you might note that two are serving prison terms for vote fraud in Ohio before you pull out that tired rant about Nader being the spoiler. It is sheer and utter nonsense.

 Ralph Nader had a constitutional right to run, you might remember the constitution, that quaint document that Georgie made irelevent, and I have a constitutional right to vote for that candidate who best expresses my vision for this nation. I have voted Nader twice and, barring some unforeseen and miraculous conversion of Obama or Clinton from their corporatocratic politics I will do so again. ( and yes, I probably just made up that word...)

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 5:40:42 PM

  (0+)

Of course Nader had a constitutional right. Huckabee has a constitutional right to keep running, with no chance, will obliterating and two teaming Romney. BUt there's no doubt that the Florida election would have been far different without huckabee in the race.

You say it is nonsense that Nader was a spoiler. I say he was and that it was not at all nonsense. 

You certainly had every right to vote for him. I'm sure it felt good. But then there was that little other factor-- Bush winning. If all the Nader voters had faced the fact that without instant runoff voting, voting for nader was a vote that could have ended the Bush disaster four years earlier, maybe the war would be over, and we wouldn't be facing an economic meltdown.

And you can vote for Nader again. He has the right to run, you have the right to vote for him, and McCain could win, or not, and if not,  and a dem wins, which is Far more preferable, it will be no thanks to you.

Advocating for Nader is, without instant runoff voting is like advocating to weaken the dem support, just a step away from supporting McCain.  Green Dragon stuff. Definitely. 

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 11:50:01 PM

  (0+)

I must wonder whether your position is one in which you honestly believe or is motivated by a baser urge? Are you attempting to position yourself for profitability of this site or do you express a sincere belief, I really cannot fathom the answer.

That you so blithely buy into the myth of Nader as spoiler, worrying at it like a terrier with a rag, despite the reams of evidence that show otherwise, despite the dubious ballot counts and disposition of voting machines that favored GOP voting districts, you continue to posit nonsense as if it were fact. Do you , in fact, do this to ensure a flow of advertising dollars or are you really so politically immature that you believe such stuff as this?

One might point to the record of the Democratic Legislators, one might speak volumes about the inadequacies of the last Democratic President, a Republican with a silver tongue, but one gets the sense that it would be a waste of time, too bad.

Voting for  a Democrat, whether Obama or Clinton, is supporting the status quo. I believe you to be intelligent enough to grasp this simple point, Mr. Kall. I believe you to be informed enough to know this as the truth. Until and unless the progressive movement thinks outside the box this nation is doomed to its path of corporate control, until and unless YOU, Mr. Kall, use more brain matter in deriving your positions then I fear that you are more a part of the problem than any Nader voter.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 8:44:49 AM

  (0+)

Now, where does the green come into the picture? Green, as in green party. I didn't have any problem with Ralph Nader running in very blue states, where he did not put a Gore or Kerry victory at risk. But running as a green, the green giant led people in Florida and Ohio to vote green, for Nader, and that, my angry progressive friends, cost the planet and the United States dearly, leading to the election of the most despised man in the history of the world.

Of course Nader did NOT run as a Green in 2004, he ran as an independent. David Cobb was the Green Party candidate in 2004 and I proudly voted for him.

Since many Democrats find themselves torn between voting for a Euro-American woman or an African American man,  neithe rof whom are particularly progressive, I suggest that you can resolve the dilemma by voting for Cynthia McKinney the African American woman and real progressive.

Are we having fun yet? 

by Gregory Wonderwheel (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 99 comments) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 3:50:44 PM

  (0+)

and a fomer Black Panther has a real chance. Frankly when it comes to what's going on within the Green Party, I actually think McKinney is right! She was shafted by the Greens, the neoliberals who yield the real power in the organization. But honestly, her chances are about as good as Angela Davis' who teaches in my community and in fact whom I also admire but would never support as a candidate. 

As for Nader in 2000 running independently and not Green, that in itself is a puzzle. As Churchill once said of the Soviet Union. It is an enigma, shrouded in mystery and wrapped in riddle.  

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 4:01:54 PM

  (0+)

In 2000 and 2004 I thought Nader & his supporters had lost their mind. Now I think he and they were just ahead of the curve. It took me a long time to waken to the 2 party farce as a game like Pro-wrestling - it should be watched for entertainment value only.

by Kathleen Bushman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 3:09:15 PM

  (0+)

Isn't it interesting when you wake up to see the world outside the Matrix?

by Gregory Wonderwheel (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 99 comments) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 3:52:26 PM

  (0+)

It isn't very education to argue "yes he was" - "no he wasn't" when we don't know what "spoiler" means.

Perhaps a "spoiler" is merely someone whose very presence shows the system is spoiled? Then instead of saying the system is spoiled we blame the person whose presence made us aware of the problem.

That is the theme of the old story "The Emperor's New Clothes."  It is not the person who says the Emperor is naked who is a "spoiler"; it is the system of silence in the face of the naked truth that is spoiled.

As I see, since we live in a representative democracy, a "wasted" vote is a vote for someone who doesn't really represent us but for whom we vote because we fear someone worse.  This is the way the election system is spoiled.  When someone runs who represents my views and I vote for that person, nothing is spoiled by my vote, the system is spoiled by not letting my vote count.

The fix of course is Instant Runoff Voting. Congress could adopt a federal statute that all elections for federal representatives are to be conducted by IRV voting so that I can have my first choice vote without wasting it and have my second or third choices count if my first choice has so little support that he or she is eliminated.

No Democrat deserves a vote until and unless the candiate supports IRV elections. 

by Gregory Wonderwheel (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 99 comments) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 3:42:40 PM

  (0+)

You fool!  Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. wrote a long article in SALON documenting the Republican theft of the election in 2004.  It is unclear whether you are referring to the 2000 or the 2004 election when you charge Nader and those who voted for him of being responsible for inflicting George Bush on the world.  In Florida in 2000, the media went back and counted all the untallied ballots left over after the Supreme Court ordered us to stop the vote count and appointed Bush.  The media counted the ballots under six scenarios and in the four which used the same standord for counting a ballot in ALL the Florida counties, Kerry won.  Only in the two scenarios where the differing standards of the differing Florida counties for accepting ballots were allowed -- in other words, inconsistent standards which denied the voters their right to have their ballots accepted or rejected according to an equal and consistent standard, and thus violated their right to equal protection --did Bush win.

Furthermore since the Florida counties outsourced the job of purging convicted felons from the voting rolls to private companies, and the low bidding companies only checked the list of those who had been CHARGED with felonies without incurring the additional expenses necessary to also look at the list of those who had actually been CONVICTED of felonies -- many people who were African American were denied their right to vote.  Since the past history of African American voting patterns shows that 90% of them would have voted Democratic, the media estimated that Gore lost 90,000 votes because of this illegal denial denial of the right to vote, a number whch dwarfs the few hundred vote discrepancy between Bush and Gore in the official, accepted vote count.

Some of those who blame Nader for the election of George Bush still argue that Nader's campaign was still one of the factors why Gore lost and Bush won, even though these illegal denials of voting rights were other factors accounting for Bush's electoral victory.  But in the light of this documented massive electoral vote theft, itis clear that even if Nader had not been on the ballot, the Republicans would have simply stolen whatever additional votes they needed to put Bush in the White House.

And given the history of the Democrats taking impeachment off the table even before Pelosi assumed her post as Speaker of the House, and given the Democrats failure to vote down further appropriations for the Iraq war, even though they only need 51 votes, not 60, to do so, Robb Kall's assertions about what the Democrats WOULD HAVE done about the Iraq war are totally without any supporting evidence.  Remember, assertions about what WOULD HAVE happened are not data or supporting evidence.  You can use your theory that voting for the lesser evil is the strategy to achieve the best results to say that, IF that theory is true, that we WOULD not have the war in Iraq, etc IF kerry had won.  But you cannot use assertions about what WOULD have happened if Gore had won as evidence that things WOULD HAVE been better IF  Gore had won. and that the theory that lesser evil voting is the best strategy is true.

Robert Halfhill   rhalfhill@juno.com

by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 325 comments) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 5:10:26 PM

  (0+)

I never said I supported globalization, either by Clinton or Bush and in fact am an ardent opponent to it. The one thing I did say was that Hillary opposed NAFTA calling it a mistake, and I indeed do share that same viewpoint!

Also my point as I believe was Rob's, is that if we simply give up now that our own chosen candidates have dropped from the race, we guarantee another neocon victory. You contend as the Green Party does there is no difference between the two major parties. I say in fact there is a difference. If there wasn't the neocons and their corporate allies wouldn't be supporting Nader, who they know will steal liberal and progressive votes from the democrats.

The Green Party, whose argument has always been there is no difference between the two major party's because of their ties to corporations, are in fact embracing those very corporations themselves. Nader is accepting contributions from 51 corporations who are also supporting the republican candidates. Is this an accident? Do you believe these corporations are even remotely considering the prospect in affecting change?

The Green Party has been corporately hijacked and if their purpose is to put pressure on both party's to affect change, then why do they always ultimately end up stealing votes from democrats and not republicans? Even as far back as 2001, Nader has been giving political cover to Bush on everything from corporate tax loopholes to the environment. That seems a funny way of putting pressure on republicans and particularly the neocons.

If Nader had any intention whatsoever in the best interests of this country, he would see the crucial importance in doing all he could to end the neocon rule rather then help it continue. So if you are saying I'm wrong, it's because I want to get rid of the neocons. You seem to think you wish the same, but in fact and like Nader all you are doing here is giving them a helping hand.

Nader has a right to run. No one said he didn't. But anyone who believes for one moment that he and the Green Party are in there to affect change, they are fooling themselves. 

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 10:41:25 AM

  (0+)

Mr. Shaw, and Rob, you are assuming that it will be the GOP or the Democrats who will determine who is the next president. I don't think that assumption holds water because registered Independents are the much bigger block of voters - much bigger than either party. The average of polls taken last year indicate that 42% of all registered voters are now Independents - or WERE; I am certain that number has not subsided - it has been increasing if I'm to believe all the comments I've heard or read recently.
last year's average of polls taken on the issue:
42%-Independent
33%-Democrat
25%-Republican
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zjkFm-mL6I

In addition another poll indicates that most of those new Independents are frustrated progressives. By a margin of 3 to 1, another poll shows that they will vote for a Democrat rather than a Republican, and 77% of those liberals indicated their intention to vote for Kucinich.

In spite of the popularity Kucinich enjoys with Independents, I am encouraging people to vote for Cynthia McKinney b/c we need to keep Kucinich in congress with a strong progressive at the helm to divert our war centered economy to a peace based economy. A peace based economy will actually do more for our industry and infrastructure than the defense industry model:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA24Ak04.html

by Kathleen Bushman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 4:03:50 PM

  (0+)

I'm not assuming anything. I do however question your poll results and not because I believe the numbers to be higher than accurate, but because they don't explain the full story. Like for example, the current polls also indicate independents favor democrats over republicans 2 to 1.  I never stated independent voters didn't have anything to say about who gets nominated either. Even as a registered democrat I often vote independently and in fact consider myself to be an independent voter. The first 4 state primaries indicate 30% of the overall vote came from independents. However, it is very likely many voters would register as independents if given the chance to vote in the primaries. Perhaps that is why there are about as many registered independents in Iowa and New Hampshire as in either of the major parties. On the other hand, my brother is/was registered as an Independent voter in Nevada, but he re-registered as a democrat so he could participate in the Nevada caucass. So these things must also be taken in account. I'd add further an independent vote doesn't guarantee a vote to the Green Party or to Nader and historical results prove it.

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 5:04:27 PM

  (0+)

I canvassed for the DNC in 06 - I have also campaigned at busy pedestrian areas for peace, impeachment and for Kucinich until recently. I came across many Independents who re-registered as Democrats just to vote for Denni. I have come across many Democrats on-line and off who have said they are leaving the party. I expect the same thing to happen to the GOP. You are familiar with the poll which indicates Americans are more unhappy with congress than with GWB and that the longer the Dems have sat on their thumbs since becoming the majority - the unhappier people have become. If you want to question the polls I've produced, perhaps you could produce others that indicate different figures. I predict that poll results will continue to fluctuate but NOT in the favor of either party.

by Kathleen Bushman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 11:21:34 PM

  (0+)

In point of fact,Mr. Shaw, you said we were better off under Clinton which is a false statement. The seeds were sown by Reagan and amply watered by Bush 41, Clinton and now Bush 43.

Secondly, you seem to dread the installation of a neocon to the office of the President yet support two who are exactly that, Obama and Clinton. What a piffle!

" If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on th eother hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accord with his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence." Bertrand Russell in Roads to Freedom

You are so wedded to the closet thinking of only two choices that you must perforce manufacture realities to cover up the shortcomings of your rock solid and unfortunately incorrect political beliefs. Dont worry, you are far from alone.

I am, however, very heartened to see the postings of more and more who do get it. It is not whether a democrat or republican wins this coming election , either way we the people are still screwed. The real deal is that, in each coming election cycle there are less folks like Mr. Shaw and Mr. Kall and more who can think outside the box that imprisons us all.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 6:49:00 PM

  (0+)

that you condemn my viewpoints as non factial when you are yet to present any facts yourself. We could go on and argue that every president in our nation's history has contributed one way or the other to the current mess we're in. But the fact remains that Reagan and the Bush boys have individually and collectively contributed more drastically to the national deficit then any other president, in fact more so then all of the others combined.

If you believe NAFTA alone has contributed to this factor you forget that most of this ripoff occurred before NAFTA even existed. I'll admit that under these circumstances, NAFTA(just like tax cuts to the rich) is the last thing we need and I acknowledge it was a blunder on Clinton's part. So was the WTO. However Clinton did a whole lot more good as president then his republican counterparts, especially economically, you know when we actually had good paying jobs instead of Burger King positions. Bush has taken bad situations and only made them worse with his privatization of government and his so called free trade renditions that amount to corporate fascism or corporatism as Mussolini once coined it. Without even mentioning the complete trashing of the Bill of Rights and the looting of our nation's coffers, Clinton's record stands far above George W. Bush's and that is not only a matter of public opinion but of public record.

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 7:34:27 PM

  (0+)

If the economy seemed so much better in the Clinton era, that's only because the full impact of Bill's free trade agreements took time to take effect. Bill had a belligerent foreign policy because he knew, as many of our ex-residents, that our economy relies upon keeping our defense industry amped up and in production. That is why the Democrats fear peace as much as the Republicans - shutting down the defense industry would deal the final dead blow following those blows the free trade agreements have dealt the middle class. America is in desperate need of a president with vision and leadership - two qualities I don't expect from the MSM's selections.



Read Chalmers Johnson's recent article: Going Bankrupt - The US's greatest threat

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA24Ak04.html

by Kathleen Bushman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 2:57:02 PM

  (0+)

I'd like to tip my hat in respect to Chalmers Johnson. He's right! We are going bankrupt or to put it in even more drastic terms, we've been bankrupt since Reagan when we turned from being the greatest lender state in the world to the greatest debtor state. Thanks to Reagan and Bush one, this nation has accumulated more debt then in anytime in history until Bush two of course who told the first two members of his have more entourage, fellows, you ain't seen nothing yet! The only calm in the storm came when Bill Clinton was elected president. He didn't end the debt of course but he did stabalize it by not running up further debt and by paying down the interest on these insurmountable, right wing inspired loans. To blame him as complicit to our current debacle however is hardly fair. His biggest mistake was capitulating to the republican congress and signing NAFTA into law. That you can blame him for. Everything else you can blame on the real culprits, Reagan, Bush and Bush.

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 3:11:02 PM

  (0+)

Clinton - at the very least - did not use the bully pulpit to its best effect; and you can't tell me that's because Bill is not enough of a politician. You might think Clinton with his charisma could have made a better attempt to galvanize public opinion.



BTW, I was in Seattle for the WTO police riots. PRIOR to the WTO riot, I became aware that our right of assembly was in jeopardy while CLINTON was president. I was part of a demonstration against the Iraq embargo - organized by a group of churches. Heck that bunch of us Quakers, Catholics and Methodists didn't even jay walk!! The fact that we pacifists were so law-abiding didn't keep the FBI from coming out of the Federal Building to snap our pictures. I was no leader - just a participant - but I was a bit ahead of the other demonstrators when dark blue suits - with bulges under the jacket - came out with big expensive looking cameras. I was the first demonstrator to be photographed by a very tall muscular man with a nasty smirk on his face.

by Kathleen Bushman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 4:17:02 PM

  (0+)

I fail to recognize your argument in that. To Clinton it was not a bully pulpit. He was fighting for his political survival. Capitulating to the republicans on NAFTA was the least of his worries and the worst of his mistakes. His reward for working with republicans got him nothing short of a congressional impeachment. The so called bully pulpit was never realized until recently when a right wing congress unfettered a rightwing president. If Clinton had only half that clout and the same congressional support, he might very well have never signed NAFTA into law in the first place. So no, Clinton was not as responsible as Fe, Fi or Fo- fum

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 6:36:47 PM

  (0+)

for the truth of the economic trends and the noting that, despite Mr. Shaw's blind allegiance to a myth, one that refuses to allow him to read facts when posted right in front of him, the policies of Clinton manifested themselves in a domino effect.

To do so would destroy the political world he has manufactured around himself, one with walls so thick that no reality is allowed entrance. I guess we will just have to go on without such as he...Dont worry Shaw, you can catch up later.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Monday, Feb 4, 2008 at 8:12:43 AM

  (0+)

Insanity: repeating the same action but expecting a different outcome. We must recognize that voting for frogs and expecting a prince is insane.

Message to the Democratic Party: Progressives are TIRED of the same old frogs--Humphrey, Johnson, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry. They ran as centrist, easy-listening Democrats, and MOSTLY LOST their elections to Republican demagogues.

When progressives hold their noses and vote for mediocre Democratic candidates, the message the DLC hears is: "Don't worry. We'll kiss any frog you nominate."

In 2008, we must WITHHOLD our VOTES from centrist, corporate-style Democrats like Obama and Clinton. That is the only way to notify the Democratic Party that Republican-lite candidates (like both Clintons, Obama, Biden, Dodd and chickens**ts like Kerry & Gore), can no longer count on progressives to fall in line in November.

Go Green Party, write in yourself or Kucinich, even Nader or Paul (yuk!)--but the message will get through.

The only real wasted votes are the ones we cast for yet another ugly frog.

by R. Queisser (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 81 comments) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 3:06:15 PM

  (0+)

Uh, that would be changing the dang colors so a person could read them without eye strain.  Black on White background is pretty practical, not to speak of customary.  Thanks.....

by Roger (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [22 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 3:14:44 PM

  (0+)

True and absolutly sickening. My Green monster will be supporting Gravel. After that I guess I will be voting for Gravel on an independant ticket or as a write-in. I will not live with myself if I knowingly cast a vote for Obama or Clinton. That's just how I feel.

by Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 6:38:38 PM

  (0+)

I agree wholeheartedly Rob and your mother was right! Why should any of us be stupid enough to propel a republican back in the White House? And that's what will happen if everyone gives up and votes for Nader. From my point of view and at the very least, I see this election as a chance to get back at the neocon shrubs who have turned our nation into a bizarro world. Hillary Clinton would be their worst nightmare as would Barrack Obama. Voting for Nader is a vote for McCain and if we want another perpetual war candidate and more economic desparity, then ignore the democrats and waste your vote on Nader, who stands even less a chance of getting elected then Kucinich.

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 8:20:02 AM

  (0+)

You have just clearly demonstrated that you are out of touch with reality and no one should ever listen to anything you say ever again.

by Caleb Friz (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 28 comments) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 10:18:41 AM

  (0+)

I've already acknowledged that Hillary is a corporate democrat. So is Obama! But either one of them will be better than what we've got in there now or what the republicans have to offer and if uninformed non-thinking individuals like yourself believe for one moment you will stop corporate America by not voting for a democrat and wasting your vote on Nader or some other no chance in hell candidate, you're out of your mind! The crucial objective here is to get rid of the republicans. You won't do that by wasting your vote. We have a better chance to corrrect campaign finance with the democrats then we ever will with the republicans and campaign finance is the real enemy.  Just check and see whose financing Nader. The republicans!

http://www.capitaleye.org/NaderDonors.8.19.04.asp 

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 12:32:36 PM

  (0+)

Those are the corporate MSM sElections - why should good Americans let their selection be determined by corporate self interest? Good Americans who can think for themselves will not act like sheep.

by Kathleen Bushman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 4:29:29 PM

  (0+)

They'll simply lie down like sheep, ignore the chance in a better shepherd and allow the wolf to remain in charge. If you wished that those of us who consider this election to be the most important in US history to ignore perhaps our one and only chance to get rid of the neocons and that wish came true, you will have established the fact we are all sheep and dumb sheep to boot! Frankly I will always welcome a third choice candidate if indeed we ever do get a real, sincere one who is capable of getting elected. But until that day, which may never come, and because of the drastic necessity in getting rid of the neocons asap, I'm voting for the person I believe has the best shot to get er done. And that ain't Nader or any other third party candidate!

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 8:02:33 PM

  (0+)

Neither of them galvanized the Democratic vote and neither fought for our right to have our vote counted. Ever wonder if maybe Nadir would have?

by Kathleen Bushman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 11:39:36 PM

  (0+)

Great points. People need to stop thinking with their emotions, and start using their cortex.

But now for something completely off topic… we need to kill that “reptilian brain” idea of Paul McLean once and for all. It was really fashionable, but clearly “metaphorical” at best even when it was first proposed.

You’ll all be glad to know that you don’t have a “reptile brain” in the middle of your brain. You do have a hypothalamus and “limbic system”, but there is no “angry holdover from reptilian evolution” in your brain. You’ve got a full-blown mammalian brain, where most of the emotional stuff comes from parts of your brain that don’t even exist in an iguana’s brain.

Think about it. Reptiles are rarely “angry”, “sad”, or “aggressive”. If you’ve ever owned a lizard, you’ll know they are shy and will always retreat. All of the properties ascribed to the “reptile brain” are actually occurring in what McLean (the inventor of the reptile brain canard) called the paleo-mammalian brain or limbic system. Significant parts of that system are absent in reptiles.

Also, we all evolved from fish originally, so why isn’t the core of our brain a “fish brain”? That makes as little sense as us having a reptile brain in our brains.

Mammals are the most aggressive animals on the planet, and so if you are really interested in where aggression and anger come from, study mammalian neurophysiology, not reptile brains.

Humans have the most advanced amygdala complex among animals, and have the greatest repertoire of aggressive behaviors. So to be honest, when talking about irrational human behavior, you don’t need to put any blame on lizards, place the blame where it belongs, in the brains of the most aggressive species on the planet. That would be us.

 

by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 8:28:38 AM

  (0+)

gave a talk at one of my brain conferences, where he said he always disagreed with McClean, and thought it was more of a bird brain than a reptilian brain. <G> That reminds me. I ought to give Karl a call.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 1:38:39 PM

  (0+)

...to see some humor rise out of the primordial ooze and muck from whence we came.

by Sandy Sand (198 articles, 0 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 1548 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 5:31:27 PM

  (0+)

Pribram has been one of my heros for years. I'd love to be able to get in touch with him.

 Interestingly, bird brains are totally different from all other types of brain. It's because they didn't evolve from early land tetrapods (amphibians/reptiles). They evolved from dinosaurs, which was a whole different branch of evolution. 

by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 8:49:21 AM

  (0+)

How you can offer Ron Paul as a possibility is a puzzlement.  His positions on all issues are repugnant. And Edwards may be a nice person but I place him in the same category about the issues. His health care plan was no better than we have now. There is no candidate out there whose positions I could endorse.

So what do I do? I can't in all honesty vote for anybody. I will write in Dennis Kucinich's name if that is a possibility. Or I will leave that blank. I am weary of having to settle for garbage in our elections.

As far as Ralph Nader is concerned, he's an old fool.  I stood with him for a long time but he has lost touch with reality. He contributed to the election of the evil fool we have in the White House now.  As long as the corporate media and big business control this country we have no chance to elect an honest person to the presidency. Where do we go?  I will fight for the right to elect an honest person for president to my dying day but I'm weary of being Don Quixote. There must be some relief for those of us who cry for this country and its decline and fall.

by Caronome (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 327 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 8:29:26 AM

  (0+)

is better than what we have now, which is no health care plan at all. Also the first person to even propose a national health care plan was Hillary Clinton. If She's elected, we will have more then we've got now, even if its more than nothing.

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 8:47:41 AM

  (0+)

Bayardtom wrote about Ron Paul:

 His positions on all issues are repugnant.

Sadly, that is so onesided and extreme that you are not taking Paul serously as a human being. You lose credibility for your position that way.

Paul's positions on a many things are very good. It is just that on other things his positions are so bad that he is unpalatable.   For example, I find his position that war requires a declaratin of war by Congress to be quite accurate and worthy of support. But his position on government is so extreme in the direction of being anti-government as a political philosophy that his view becomes Unconstitutional as a denial of the very purposes of government and the Constitution.

by Gregory Wonderwheel (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 99 comments) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 4:04:08 PM

  (0+)

In a DEMOCRACY I vote for the candidate who best represents my issues. When Ann Coulter says she supports Hillary because she's more CONSERVATIVE than McCain it's time to vote Green Party.

I'm voting for McKinney 

Green Party Presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney speaks to the

by Craig Seeman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 8:29:34 AM

  (0+)

Believing anything coming from the enemy camp, particularly from Ann Coulter, is like believing chicken little. Sociopaths like Coulter will say anything. Don't fall for it for a minute. When the person who calls Bill Clinton a traitor one minute says she likes Hillary the next, just laugh and remember any woman with an Adams apple is not to be trusted.

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 9:01:58 AM

  (0+)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jJtSkQlhqI

by Craig Seeman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 8:30:22 AM

  (0+)

I know few people read books anymore, but "Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton's Impeachment" by David P. Schipper, a high ranking DEMOCRAT who showed just how many things were corrupted during Billary's term, and it had nothing to do with sex.  Now people want to go there again?  If so, then "Sometimes The (Great Red) Dragon Wins."  Hillary was the brains of that combination, Bill thinks with another part of his anatomy. Always has, always will.

by Edward Ulysses Cate (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 232 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 8:32:24 AM

  (0+)

People are REALLY INEXCUSABLY NAIVE if they vote for Hillary for any reason whatsoever. MUCH BETTER to stay at home on election day than help put that criminal in the White House.

by Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 142 comments [20 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 2:27:18 PM

  (0+)

...people are extremely inexcusably naive if they believe for an instant that a vote for Nader is a vote for progressive change or that not voting at all will provide a solution to this neocon nightmare. At the very least WE MUST remove the neocons from power, even if that means biting the bullet on one of the two remaining democratic candidates. Doing nothing rewards neocons. Voting for Nader rewards neocons. To many of those people you reflect as being INEXCUSABLY NAIVE, this is a no brainer.

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 11:38:11 AM

  (0+)

There is no "enemy camp" in my mind. The "Neocons" are just a sloppy generalization about a club that doesn't really exist. Every man and woman, in reality, stands alone. Some people have more integriy than others, and if I voted, I would vote for integrity- no matter where I found it, party-wise.

Hillary has NO INTEGRITY; therefore, it is simply inexcusable to vote for her. Think of how you are potentially shackling Americans to four more years of scandals and treachery by voting for her. I don't buy into fearmongering logic that insists we need to vote for the lesser of two evils. That's how most people vote, and the results are always crap anyway.

It has been argued that McCain is more a typical Democrat than Hillary, and I think it's a legitimate argument. Pretending there's any REAL distinction between Hillary and these people you label as "neocons" is a weak argument. She's a crook, they are crooks.

by Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 142 comments [20 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 4, 2008 at 9:45:04 AM

  (0+)

     The corporate powers here will determine who our next president is. Not you the voter. If Hillary wins its because they either want her to win, or will tolerate her winning, and want a happier public. Same with Barak. I dont believe they want McAin. When it comes to Corporate power, the wishes of investor's counts, and an all out pro-war candidate is starting to scare investors (The Corporate Structures dont want an open and obvious "we the people vs Corporation war" quite just yet either. Hillary or Obama will suit their needs (for the time being) just fine. As for myself: I am through playing their game. They dont need my participation (Which is a statement in and of itself). The Corporations count the vote in any case or manipulate it in one of several ways, we know this but seem to ignore it other than paying a little lip service. So again "JOJO was right". It's not the vote count - its they that count the votes. This election cycle has it so obvious to me and a growing number of people that its becoming both sad and ironically laughable. Many of us are nearing the end of our grief cycle (acceptance) for the good old USA. 

by Brad (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 37 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 8:39:36 AM

  (0+)

How is not supporting the democratic candidate going to change corporate influence, which has played a role since the beginnings of the republic? Is helping a republican to get reelected going to do that? I think not.

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 9:13:59 AM

  (0+)

If Obama continues to talk sweetness but takes no real stand on race, he'd be the perfect ruling class president.  No power base but the corps, and how convenient for the trashing of minorities to be handled by a nice black man. Once he does that he loses everyone's respect.  The perfect tool.  Clinton would not be blemished by behaving racist.  It would be expected and she would not, at least, be viewed as betraying her own people. A bonafide member of the imperial inner circle, married to a guy who moved corporate interests ahead light years and people's interests back to the same degree, she should be only a little less attractive to the conservative, but not radica republican base.  Certainly preferable to McCain whom the radicals like well enough but the rational among the right recognize to be both out of control and certifiable.  At this point I'll most likely go for Clinton for one reason only: if things continue to spin out of Neocon control and the nation heads for chaos, a smart president with some ability to get a fresh viewpoint taken seriously might be our only possible salvation.  Bill Clinton is damned smart, whatever else he may be, and has access to powerful people (I used to think Hillary was smart and had some depth but that illusion has long faded).  Who I really want is Captain Kirk.

by David Weiner (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 9:33:08 AM

  (0+)

The poor guy hasn't even been elected yet and already(according to you) he's a traitor to his race! Amazing! And Hillary is a racist too! Unbelieveable! Bush and the neocons must be eating up this stuff! In fact it sounds as though they are spoonfeeding you!

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 12:40:16 PM

  (0+)

I owuld urge you to read the editorial in the current issue of the Black Commentator regarding the Obama candidacy:

 blackcommentator.com

Not exactly a ringing endorsement that......

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 5:49:39 PM

  (0+)

Well apparently and in spite of this "is Obama black enough" argument, Obama has being doing very well thus far in gaining the black vote.

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 10:58:18 AM

  (0+)

Sorry I jumped the gun on that one! You are right and in fact and for the most part, I feel the same way.

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 1:21:22 PM

  (0+)

my apology goes to David.

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 12:45:29 PM

  (0+)

I do not see Obama as a traitor to his race anymore then I see Hillary as a racist. I do agree she is probably the best choice in that she is capable and will probably be the most capable in the event of a major socio-economic disaster. That said, whomever wins the democratic nomination will get my vote and I would rather gamble on either one of them having the ability to deal with disaster than allow those who have created this disaster remain in power.

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 2:45:10 PM

  (0+)

Actually, I have been supporting Obama through this entire election season, so I don't know if I can claim that my dragon is green. Maybe it's more blue.

I have, however. commented on why I would not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. I have been able to do so with a clear conscience since I don't believe her to be capable of winning the general election for reasons I have stated in those comments. My mind was more open at the beginning of the season, until my memory was refreshed with the Clinton clan's campaign style; and if I'm going to be perfectly honest, there has, no doubt, been an element of politicking involved.

Who knows, perhaps in November, when I WILL be in that voting booth, if I am looking at Hillary's name, (does she have more than one?) above or below the totalitarian choice; my knees may turn to jelly and my resolve to mush as I cast a vote for the Ice Princess.

But, what the hell, as I have said already, whoever wins this election may have a majority or plurality of the vote, perhaps even a mandate; but when you give due regard to what they'll be walking into, you can't say that they have a victory. 

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 8:39:38 AM

  (0+)

will be to hold onto, let alone expand a congressional majority this November. This congress has been made to look completely ineffectual by obstructionist Republicans with, seemingly, the full cooperation and approval of the congressional Democrats.

Come November, the war will still be there, the executive department criminals unimpeached (though definitely not unimpeachable), the inequities of the tax system will be more obvious and better understood, and we are likely to be in the tank economically. The People of this great nation are going to be looking for somebody to backhand for it, and who but the congressional incumbents will be more deserving.

Anyone interested in preserving a Democratic congressional majority needs to be in the street for weeks before they get to the voting booth. Otherwise, I fear we are due for another bout of divided government.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 8:58:11 AM

  (0+)

...but I think the bluedog(republican) democrats are the major culprits. It is they who are helping the republican minority, and making the democrats look weak, not the majority of the party. We need to work on getting rid of them as soon as we get rid of the republicans. 

Another point, will we ever get a Henry Waxman from the republicans? Russ Feingold? Dennis Kucinich? Not in this dimension!

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 12:52:57 PM

  (0+)

several republicans in the house and senate are giving up their seats and going into retirement. A few democrats are also but the chances in democrats gaining seats in the house looks very promising. Activism is certainly a key to success. But the opportunity is clearly available.

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 12:35:26 PM

  (0+)

For too many presidential campaigns I have voted for the Democrat because the Republican was a worse alternative.  However, since both Clinton and Obama will continue combat operations called "counter terrorism" operations in Iraq, neither will get my vote.  As a veteran and father of an active duty soldier, I will not have the blood of G.I.'s and Iraqis on my hands by voting for a war monger.  I will either write in Kucinich or vote Green.  I am voting my conscience and not my emotions.  My one vote will count just as much as your one vote.

by Dave Peter (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 26 comments) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 8:46:15 AM

  (0+)

Call it Green Dragon or Purple Penguin but this time I vote my conscience...as far as I can tell, the Democrats don't deserve to be counted as "better" since they have failed in Congress and will continue the corporatist agenda ad nauseum. Big Military, half-asssed health care, lackadaisical environmental progress. etc.

Actually, the more I watch this whole process the last few years, the less hope I have for the survival of the USA, except as a brutal Empire and that will fall of it's own blood-drenched  accord, like all Empires do.

This is NOT a Democracy and hasn't been for many an election, if EVER!

The only way this turns out good is with a Spiritual transformation of Humankind. Politics are a tempest in a teapot.  Thanks for listening since this IS a political website but I'm fed up with all of it. Round and around we spin, going nowhere. 

by Papawhale (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 69 comments [19 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 9:55:01 AM

  (0+)

But no one seems to want to face that truth

by arlen custer (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 466 comments [68 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 2:37:29 PM

  (0+)

Accept this and perhaps we can begin to think clearly.

Maybe that's what happened to DK. I don't doubt it, since he always thinks like I do.

by Daniel Geery (26 articles, 95 quicklinks, 126 diaries, 912 comments [26 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 7:37:01 AM

  (0+)

We don't know that for sure and we won't know it until one of them becomes the president. And even if this is the case, stealing votes from democrats to put another republican in office would be the same as coronating Bush for life!

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 1:15:53 PM

  (0+)

For too many presidential campaigns I have voted for the Democrat because the Republican was a worse alternative.  However, since both Clinton and Obama will continue combat operations called "counter terrorism" operations in Iraq, neither will get my vote.  As a veteran and father of an active duty soldier, I will not have the blood of G.I.'s and Iraqis on my hands by voting for a war monger.  I will either write in Kucinich or vote Green.  I am voting my conscience and not my emotions.  My one vote will count just as much as your one vote.

by Dave Peter (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 26 comments) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 8:46:51 AM

  (0+)

your vote counting equally may be a presumptious claim.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 7:45:54 AM

  (0+)

to anyone whom I have offended with a stupid misspelling in the above comment. When one is speaking in a flippant manner, quickness is essential. I see here that when one writes in a flippant manner they still should take their time to proof read.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 8:32:30 AM

  (0+)

to the editor for correcting that thoughtless mistake.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 1:03:05 PM

  (0+)

Obviously, your comfortable comment writers are comfortable middle or upper class people who don't do their own grocery shopping, live in poor New Orleans neighborhoods, have relatives fighting, wounded or dying in Iraq, have a daughter who needs an abortion (which the 3 republican candidates will deny). The poor guy has to pay more for gas; what a tragedy. Civil liberties? What's that got to do with them? Where have they been in these last 7 plus years of hell?  Where do they get the arrogance to stay home and jeopardize another Nader-Bush situation?

And why do you flame their hatred by advertising antiHillary nutcrackers and tshirts on a page of supposedly thoughtful commentary? 

by TrachtyJr (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 8:47:45 AM

  (0+)

If you call living in a small studio cottage as being privilged, my only answer to that would be let a republican get reelected. Then we'll be living in cardboard boxes!

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 1:07:24 PM

  (0+)

1) If Ron Paul were elected, there would be no assault on woman's rights. If anything, it would get the fed out of patrolling woman's rights.

2) To the responder who finds "all of Ron Paul's positions repugnant"; what exactly do you stand for? He wants to end the war, stabilize the economy, eliminate the fed reserve, restore civil liberties, stop the slide into fascism, restoire the checks and balances to the government. You find these positions repugnant? Really?

3) That said, Rob is probably right, it will not be Paul against the dem. The only way Paul is there is if he runs indy. I do agree with Rob, if it came down to Hillary Paul, that would be tough, but right now it would have to be Paul.

4) Now, if it came down to anyone against Romney or McCain, forget little green dragons or dreams of Kucinich-Paul 08 - YOU HAVE TO GO VOTE AGAINST THE NEOCONS. There really is no choice. I agree with the responder who said the machine basically selects your candidates but there are some core differences between the two corrupt parties.

John McCain is running on a platform of staying in Iraq for 100 years whilie singing "Bomb-Bomb-Bomb Iran" Romney is an empty suit. Granted Hillary is bought and sold and Obama is no less corrupt than any of them, but short of a surprise indy run - it will again be the lesser of two evils and do not confuse who that is. It is always the people running opposite the lunacy we have dealt with for the past seven years.

Good article Rob.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 9:07:57 AM

  (0+)

Anthony. It is crucial the neocons be removed. The entire nation is at stake and people like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich will still be there to guide us to the right path.

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 1:25:44 PM

  (0+)

Dennis' seat is being challenged by a more corporation friendly DLC suit.

If you want his voice in Congress, please support him even if you don't live in Ohio! We need his sanity in a house gone mad!

http://kucinich.us/ 

by Sha Llel (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 90 comments) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 2:30:33 PM

  (0+)

nothing is for sure, but the coalition Dennis is building will grow and go on whether he is reelected or not. I voted for him in the California primary only to be disappointed in his dropping out. But I will continue to support him as a Californian and as an American.

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 2:59:06 PM

  (0+)

Over EIGHT THOUSAND Registered Democrats in Florida voted for Bush in 2000.  Blaming Nader has been effective for Democrats to not really look at their party, as blaming Bush.  Blame is lack of responsibility and excuse is lack of leadership and that is what is the Democrat Party, who is not listening to you, they are programming you, and why YOU will be voting for more war and ultimately EVERYTHING you don't what.

The Democrat Corporation knows it has you by the nose, so pinch away because your choice this election is a dictator, Female, Black or White.

Ron Paul OPPOSES the NWO "Free Trade", WTO and witnesses them as UN NWO institutions.  In Ron Paul's America, Free Trade means hemp farmers and compete with corn farmers for biofuels, there's so much more...Ron Paul is offering the world PEACE.  But some folks are too good for that me thinks.

by Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 307 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 9:30:10 AM

  (0+)

I like Ron Paul, nearly as much as Dennis Kucinich in fact, but he doesn't stand a chance in hell. Neither does Nader though he traditionally accepts campaign finance from republicans. That doesn't sound like change to me. If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck then that's exactly what you'll get.

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 1:42:38 PM

  (0+)

Hemp industrialization is the answer to our problems!

But, you already know that!

Thanks for speaking up!

www.thc-ministry.org

by Garry Minor (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 56 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 2:08:06 PM

  (0+)

To Rob Kall: If you are in fact refering to Ron Paul, with that statement, where did you come up with that garbage?
Thank you Jeanette..you are obviously an informed person (woman).
Rob.... better turn off your television! And btw, the next time you approach Conyers..grow some 'huevos'.

by Cap'n Stubbs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 7 comments) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 2:23:17 PM

  (0+)

You wrote: 

The way to defeat a dragon is to stay calm. To take possession of your senses. Overcome your anger and your fear. Regain control of your higher brain. Because of you don't the dragon is deadly and will not only kill you but lay waste to the kingdom.  

Maybe laying waste to the Kingdom is not such a bad idea. If the Kingdom lays waste to its citizens, what choice do the citizens have left? If backed into a corner one either gives up, or comes out fighting. If left with a "no choice" situation (a choice between two non-choices) I will refuse to cooperate with a system that is designed to leave me with this non-choice. 

I will not comply. I will not get involved in a counterfeit system that is designed to distract me from the real issues at hand, such as how to bring the corruption down and fill the void with something of value such as liberty, justice, fair-play, hope, and let us not forget courage.

We are tainted by our associations, and if we choose to support a corrupt system, we become part of it. We need a new system, and the only way to focus on that is to take your advice and remain calm.

by Barbara Peterson (73 articles, 109 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 541 comments [98 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 10:06:25 AM

  (0+)

I understand what you're saying but every time we shop in a grocery store we're supporting this bloody system. Since most of us don't own enough land to sustain us in growing our own food, we are forced to deal with the corporate machine, that not only exists here in the United States, by around the entire world.

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 2:00:13 PM

  (0+)

You wrote: 

I understand what you're saying but every time we shop in a grocery store we're supporting this bloody system. Since most of us don't own enough land to sustain us in growing our own food, we are forced to deal with the corporate machine, that not only exists here in the United States, by around the entire world.

by Barbara Peterson (73 articles, 109 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 541 comments [98 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 6:33:58 PM

  (0+)

And I agree totally!

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 11:10:26 AM

  (0+)

I would buy locally from a locally owned grocer if I lived closer to their outlets, but I'm looking to move closer. I have no trust in the Safeway corp. or many other national chains. You can all do the same - to whatever extent you can avoid buying from the super corps you help slay the corporacratic dragon.

by Kathleen Bushman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments) on Monday, Feb 4, 2008 at 12:32:27 AM

  (0+)

The way to defeat a dragon is to stay calm. To take possession of your senses. Overcome your anger and your fear. Regain control of your higher brain. Because of you don't the dragon is deadly and will not only kill you but lay waste to the kingdom.

I agree with truth2power that sometimes the kingdom needs to be wasted.

I'd add that this view of dragons comes from the Western worldview and that in Asia the dragon has a primarily beneveloent image, not the evil image that dragons have in the West. 

The Western view of Dragons comes from the Chrsitian predisposition to view nature as evil. When nature is not contrased as the enemy of God then the dragon as representative of nature is not inherently evil.

 Something to think about when using such imagry as dragons.

Usurla LeGuin wrote in the Earthsea triology that a dragon master is someone who can speak with a dragon and live to tell about it.

by Gregory Wonderwheel (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 99 comments) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 4:34:53 PM

  (0+)

When we are motivated by fear we seldom make smart decisions.  It doesn't matter whether that's fear of a terrorist attack or a Republican.  The scare tactics that you, Rob, have succumbed to are of exactly the same kind that Karl Rove used to get Bush elected.  Voting for Hillary or Obama because we're so afraid of Mccain or Romney is just the same as voting for Bush because we're afraid of gays destroying marriage. 

There is no qualitative difference between Clinton and Mccain (or Obama and Romney for that matter), the difference is only that of quantity.  Clinton would give us smaller wars, but both would give us more wars, more belligerence, more American aggression. 

The argument that the Green Party helped get Bush elected is recycled Democratic propoganda.  Voting fraud, major, documented voting fraud and two republican secretary generals of Florida and Ohio--that's what got Bush elected (not to mention the supreme court, Al Gore's cowardice and complicity, and MSM silence).  If you want to blame someone for Bush, blame Al Gore.  He's the one who should have stood up and called foul, he's the one who should have stood up for his rights, for the American people's rights, instead of caving in, e.g. 'sparing the American people a divisive recount'. 

 Your backing of the eventual Democratic nominee, even if it's Hillary, has made me seriously consider dropping my membership to this site.  However, as long as your hopelessness does not get in the way of my freedom of expression, I'll stick around, albeit hesitantly.

by Caleb Friz (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 28 comments) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 10:08:03 AM

  (0+)

not the "lesser evil," they are an integral part of the very same evil. They are simply a more smiling face on the very same monster of corporatist/militarists.

The argument that Nader "lost" Florida is pure BS. It's a dishonest argument  (ironically, on a par with the 1950's, when rightwingers used to accuse liberals of having "lost" China to Communism).

As a candidate in 2000, Al Gore stunk. He chose the neocon Joe Lieberman as his running mate. His campaign stood for nothing, & he didn't have the nerve to tangle with Bush in any significant way. Except for one vaguely populist sentence in his speech accepting the nomination, he never even raised the issue of excessive corporate power.

I'm glad to see that many OEN readers are getting wise to this insanity of always swallowing the conformist slop that the Democratic Party serves up, no matter how poisonous it is. That's a hopeful sign.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 11:02:24 AM

  (0+)

the Green Party isn't? There are some who might argue the Green Party is controlled by neo-liberal-David Horowitz types and financed by corporate republicans. The so called Green Democrat rule of the party is to many a myth, in fact as much a myth as in believing you have to vote for the Green Party to support Green issues. Robert Kennedy Junior supports Green. He's also supporting Hillary Clinton.

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 3:00:22 PM

  (0+)

Do your REALLY believe there is no difference between the two. I think that one must be blinded by anger and resentment to even say such a thing. I am very disappointed that Edwards, Kucinich, Gravel, Even Dodd and Richardson are not running. I'd have chosen any of them over Hillary. But to say there is no difference is blindness or worse.  Get a grip. And I clearly said that voting green in safe blue states made sense. Voting green in battleground states was for green dragons, whose cortexes stopped functioning. Sorry. Hillary has a ton of negatives. If she wins, OpEdnEws will spend the next four or eight years going after them, trying to keep her honest. But if McCain wins, America really, really loses far worst. If you can't see that... then you need to look really hard at your anger. It is blotting your vision from seeing reality. IT's not a pretty reality, but better that going blind.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 1:46:51 PM

  (0+)

Rob, I did not say that there is no "difference" between Clinton and Mccain.  What I said was that there was no "qualitative difference".  As a writer, you must recognize that adjectives matter. 

I am new to the progressive movement, being young and mostly uninterested in my previous life.  Now that I am becoming involved, I am trying to learn as much as I can about both the history of the movement and the history of the ideas behind the progressive movement.  A look back often gives us a better look forward, past the immediacy of the current election.  When I take that long view back I see that progressives have been fighting American empire since the invasion of Cuba and the Philippines over a hundred years ago.  Even then, the Democrats and Republicans were completely complicit in this empire-building, war-mongering, indigenous people-murdering, mass-media distorting, earth-raping agenda.  They are two heads of the same hydra.  Clinton #1 supported numerous wars and interventions as outlined in other comments, and Clinton #2 (who will be the next president no matter what you or I do) has supported the current wars in her time in the Senate. 

In a very real sense, elections are a distraction from, and an excuse for our enslavement.  What I see the Green party--and other third parties--as, is a genuine subversive movement to make our votes matter again.  I view a vote for the corporate party as a wasted vote--no matter which head you choose. 

Personally, I truly believe that qualitative change is possible.  But in order for that to happen we have to take a step back, "Stop and Think", as a wise man often says, and look at what efforts are currently bringing about that qualitative change, and which are false hopes meant to distract, sublimate, and swallow up the progressive energy in this country into a sinkhole where it is fed back into the system.  I view Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as two of those massive sinkholes that will absorb so much positive, progressive energy and hope and channel it right back into the corporate-fascist machine that is enslaving us and devastating our earth, air, water and rock. 

by Caleb Friz (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 28 comments) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 4:32:15 PM

  (0+)

Caleb Friz:

Friz' statement matches my understanding of US political history.

The conversation about lesser of two evils voting is about a situation created and sustained outside our reach. For this reason it frustrates our coming to agreement. (It's not our choice. It's a dilemma imposed from the outside. Our power is tricked away from us every four years. Help, I think I've seen this movie!)

In my state the Democratic Party opposes both campaign finance limits and IRV. How about yours?

When I first voted, the choice was between Lyndon Johnson and Barry Goldwater. LBJ ran as the peace candidate. Obviously he was not.

We need to work against the bubble, fraud, and destruction (etc.) that sustain what Marjorie Kelly calls our permanent aristocracy. That would be a mutually useful conversation. 

It will take strength of character to get out of the stampeded lemming line, and for the first time in our lives, vote "innocent" of the war state almost all these candidates believe in, for a third candidate.

by Cass Martinez (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Monday, Feb 4, 2008 at 12:34:31 AM

  (0+)

I believe I am facing reality, and yes, I am angry. I am angry that our government is run by corporations whose only purpose is to make money. The people who run these corporations don't care about the little people. In fact the little people are in the way. Nations are reduced to rubble to provide a so called "clean slate" so that the elite vultures can feed off the carcasses. America is heading towards a big divide between the haves and the have-nots, with perpetual war on the horizon. Neither party has a candidate that can or will solve this problem, with the possible exception of Ron Paul. However, I cannot forsee him winning the Republican ticket. He is simply not one of the good old boys/girls. He does not fit into the equation.

I believe thinking that any of the "popular" candidates who will inevitably win the elections is anything other than a shill for the corporate elites is delusional. We might take slightly different paths with each candidate, but rest assured, the destination is the same.

by Barbara Peterson (73 articles, 109 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 541 comments [98 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 7:09:35 PM

  (0+)

Why did you say that?

by Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 8:15:56 PM

  (0+)

I know, Iknow...I sound bitter, but tell me where the Dems core values IN REALITY, here and now differ so much from Repubs--except in empty rhetoric. Clinton and Nafta and the bombing in Yugoslavia/Bosnia? The USA sanctions that starved children in Iraq and ignored Africa? I think not. The current Congressional leaders? Hah! Deeds speak so clearly to core values, my friends. And when a really decent human being, Brother Carter was in the WH, he was overwhelmed and betrayed by the Corps and Financiers behind the scenes who really rule this country. Yeah, I'm bitter, because we've been lied to from day one. The great American Experiment is a freakin' LIE. Liberty and Justice for all, my tired old Hippie ass! Maybe I'm just grumpy and burned out from all the lies and I'l be re-inpired sometime down the line but I think I see with some clarity that we have been bought, enslaved and sold down the river. A huge shame, isn't it?

by Papawhale (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 69 comments [19 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 10:12:59 AM

  (0+)

I understand where Rob Kall is coming from and why many people see the Green Party as siphoning votes from progressive-moderate Democrats. But, the 2000 election was not thrown to the Republicans by the Greens...it was lost by Gore-Lieberman who failed to take courageous stands on the issues and who did not respond to Republican attacks in a timely or firm manner. This question has long since been settled by studies that have shown most Green voters would not have voted at all, had they not had a choice like Nader. And, in 2004, many Greens voted for Sen. Kerry, believing it was better to live to fight another day rather than help Bush win and possibly lose what remains of our liberty. What did we actually get? With compelling evidence of systematic voter fraud and intimidation in Ohio, it fell to the Greens and Libertarians to call for and pay for a recount when Kerry failed to stand up for the voters who supported him.

It's not enough to complain that the alternative is not viable...we have to make it viable. To all those who say they want a viable 3rd party, guess what? You already have one. All you have to do is get involved, work for the issues you care about, and vote Green.

Eugene V. Debs said, "I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it, then vote for what I don't want and get it." For me, 2004 was the last time I considered voting for the lesser of two evils. I'm proud of my votes for Nader in 1996 and 2000.

John Wages

Candidate, 1st Congressional Dist., MS

www.votejohnwages.com

by John Wages (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 10:18:26 AM

  (0+)

who failed to take courageous stands on the issues and who did not respond to Republican attacks in a timely or firm manner."

Knock, knock. Once again, please repeat after me: "Gore did win." The Supreme Buttheads gave it to Bush. 

by Daniel Geery (26 articles, 95 quicklinks, 126 diaries, 912 comments [26 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 7:45:11 AM

  (0+)

Here's a link to an article that I wrote on OpEdnews.com about the prohibition against secret vote counting in Virginia's Constitution. http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mark_ada_080201_another_open_letter_.htm

For more information see, Project Vote Count’s Election News and FAQ

http://www.projectvotecount.com/ElectionNews.aspx and http://www.projectvotecount.com/faq.aspx

by Mark Adams (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 312 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 10:29:58 AM

  (0+)

http://prorev.com/connex2.htm just for the record

http://www.skolnicksreport.com/mrich.html 41-Slick mafia in effect 

Whitewater or Keating 5 take your pick.

by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 463 comments [24 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 10:36:36 AM

  (0+)

The real common denominator between Hillary, Obama and McCain. Plus banking and investment.  And of course, MEDIA

Naaaaa, it can't be that simple, someone might notice.

by "Hoss" David P. (51 articles, 5 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 338 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 10:39:47 AM

  (0+)

Nader believes that the system is totally corrupt, so he decided not to play the game.  I think he proved his point in 2000.

The Republicans do the robbing, cheating, and stealing, while the Democrats drive the getaway car.  It has been that way since the founding fatheads tried to give an illusion of democracy to the herd.

Gore lost his election  when he froze out the left and he allowed a corporate logo to be placed on the democratic convention hall.  He ran a typical lazy and useless Democratic party campaign.  He allowed the Supreme filth to validate and  steal the farce at the end.

He didn't even entertain a challenge in Congress.

The only bad thing to come out of Nader's challenge is that he provided the scapegoat the Democrats needed for their incredible passivity and complicity in the electoral farce.

If he runs again, he won't get any support (the crook media will take care of that).  The Democratic leadership has been complicit in every Republican crime, as it has always been.  The cards are marked with corporate candidates and the dice are loaded with money.

I predict we will have another great depression, and that their will be soldier (democratic or republican) outside every door.  Nader is irrelevant to the racketeering process.

' 

by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1760 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 10:40:55 AM

  (0+)

Did you see that recent article here from bradblog.com?

Remember the town in Ohio with fewer than 400 registered voters that tallied 10,000 votes for Bush in 2004? And there were thousands of cities and towns just like it. There were also places where thousands of votes just "disappeared."

If you get a chance to watch the new documentary "Uncounted,"  it includes a simple computer program. The computer has a mock election where the candidates are Joe and Mary. If everyone votes for Mary, the computer shows each voter a confirmation that they voted for Mary, and can also print out a receipt showing that they voted for Mary. But when you ask it for the final results, it shows that all the votes were cast for Joe. 

More than 80% of American votes are tallied on computerized central tabulators. They will show the results that the military-industrial-intelligence-media complex and the big multinational corporations of the wealthy elite have preprogrammed them to show. They don't even work unless the results of the election are programmed into them BEFORE the election.

But in case the machines fail, the final decision rests with the Electoral College and the Supreme Court anyway, and there is no appeal from either of them.

There was an article here some time back that urged a vote for the Democrat on the grounds that both candidates would continue the war, and it is likely that another million innocent people would be killed, but the Democrat might kill 10,000 people fewer than the Republican.

When your country is waging a war of aggression, you are in the position of the Germans during WWII. You are either complicit in war crimes, or you resist -- you can't claim that you didn't know.

Please stop and think for a minute. If the central tabulator is programmed to give 10,000 votes for a particular candidate in a town with fewer than 400 registered voters, it doesn't matter if only half of them turn out to vote, if every one of them turns out to vote, or who they vote for.

I understand that some people are still thinking in terms of what is best for the U.S., not about the people in Iraq. Check some of the financial news for how the dollar is doing these days and why. The wealthy elite can ride out another great depression as they did the last time, and buy up everything they don't already own for pennies on the dollar, but we can't.

It doesn't matter who you vote for. Your vote doesn't count. What matters is that you either keep giving the oligarchy a vote of confidence or not. The results will be the same whether you do or don't, but you are not required to vote for the destruction of innocent lives and of your own economy, and that's what any vote you cast in a rigged election really is.

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 10:44:55 AM

  (0+)

Mark, your words still make more sense than most anybody else's except maybe those of RichM.

"It doesn't matter who you vote for. Your vote doesn't count."

What more can I say? That's it, wrapped in in a nutshell. This article + discussion are a good run in the woods without bringing the firewood home. 

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 1:58:40 PM

  (0+)

That's really the bottom line.  However, I would go through the motions and "vote my conscience" anyway, if I ever got a chance to vote for a good candidate. I wonder if Ron Paul will make it to the Pennsylvania primary in April.

by Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 142 comments [20 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 2:36:33 PM

  (0+)

cast my vote, just for the fun of it if

a) my absentee ballot would be opened and counted

b) it wouldn't cost me more than ten bucks to do so.

Neither applies.

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 2:48:41 PM

  (0+)

Mark, you wrote:

If you get a chance to watch the new documentary "Uncounted,"  it includes a simple computer program. The computer has a mock election where the candidates are Joe and Mary. If everyone votes for Mary, the computer shows each voter a confirmation that they voted for Mary, and can also print out a receipt showing that they voted for Mary. But when you ask it for the final results, it shows that all the votes were cast for Joe. 

More than 80% of American votes are tallied on computerized central tabulators. They will show the results that the military-industrial-intelligence-media complex and the big multinational corporations of the wealthy elite have preprogrammed them to show. They don't even work unless the results of the election are programmed into them BEFORE the election.

I saw the documentary, and am sharing it with as many people we know that want to see it. 

Participating in a delusion is not for me. At some point you've got to stand for something. I will not raise my hand in compliance with a rigged election and be counted with the people who do. I want to be able to hold my head up and state emphatically, no! I will not comply!

People say that if you do not vote, then you have no say in what happens, and have no right to complain about the outcome. I say that if you do vote in a rigged election you have no right to complain because you are playing into the theater games that serve only to delight the elite and promote corruption, and no meaningful change will come about.

Time to step out of the Hegelian Dialectic.

by Barbara Peterson (73 articles, 109 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 541 comments [98 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 8:12:43 PM

  (0+)

As an observer and a very concerned citizen of the world Rob is using classical brain storming words. "Hold your nose and vote", then go home with a clear mind that you have assisted in bringing an end to non-stop fear. There is another saying "Remember the Alamo.." which in years to come will stand beside "Remember the Patriot Act". Your vote stands between tyranny and freedom.. use it wisely.

by IwasJulius (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 31 comments) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 10:51:11 AM

  (0+)

An alternative not mentioned in this article is that of Registering Green.  In Colorado at least the Secretaries of State must make public the number of folks registered Green.   Once that Registration is at 33% the spoiler argument disappears! Not exactly instant run-off voting but it is one way people can cast a vote even before November.  This of course is much more difficult in States where no ballot access exists.  But where it does it could be a powerful tool to make a Green Candidate a possible winner and put a fright in the two corporate parties. 

by Bob Kinsey (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 10:56:27 AM

  (0+)

The only reason they aren't as corrupt as the Ds & Rs is because they don't have power yet.

You've read Naomi Klein's book, "The Shock Doctrine," and you still intend to vote? Any vote at all is a vote for torture, geocide, and war crimes, even a vote for a Green or a write-in for Mickey Mouse. Without a few hundred actual registered voters, and at least a handful of them casting votes, how can the computers show 10,000 votes for crimes against humanity in a small town?

The war profiteers need your vote. They're spending millions of dollars to persuade you to vote. They want the world to know that no matter how many innocent people they torture and kill, you are every bit as much behind them as the German people were behind Hitler. Except that he did good things for their economy, at least at first, while none of the globalization treaties that the Democrats and Republicans have pushed through have done anything more than outsource our jobs and ravage our economy.

I'm very pleased to see that there are some intelligent people in this thread. But it saddens me to see those who are complicit in crimes against humanity, who cannot pretend they don't know because they've even written about the crimes against humanity that our country is committing, but who still intend to vote for war criminals and urge others to do the same. I really hope that someday you will be judged more harshly than the "good Germans" were, because you cannot even pretend that you didn't know.

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 11:20:41 AM

  (0+)

And as a fan of Naomi Klein I understand your logic. However, by not voting at all, it could also be argued that this does nothing to stop the corporate carnage and bloodshed either. Washing your hands from this fact may even be argued as an act in complicity. Also Klein doesn't support the idea in a bloody revolution either(which would seem to be the only affective alternative in creating change from the standpoint both party's are one and the same) but rather in seeking a third way(like the New Deal) before revolution, communism or fascism becomes the alternative.

We know what direction the neocons have taken, so better to vote them out of power and put pressure on the democrats and punish them in future elections if they do not bend to the will of the people, then to sit back and simply allow the neocons  to remain in power. 

We must remember that never in our nation's history have we seen more acts in constitutional and international lawlessness then we are witnessing today under neocon authority. Yes some democrats are complicit, but overall this nightmare has been a neoconservative effort that even democrats in the 90's(Project for a New American Century/The Bush Doctrine) laughed out of the halls of congress as insanity. Well it is insanity and doing nothing won't make it go away. The only way to make it go away is to take that first step in activism by voting the neocons out of power and the only way to do that is to vote for one of the two remaining democrats. The other steps are to remain involved in activism, get out on the streets in numbers, and constantly question authority in peaceful civil disobedience so we cannot be ignored. I have a feeling that before Bush leaves office and the economic downswing takes a major turn for the worse, we won't have a problem in motivating people to do that. But if we do nothing in any of these arenas, we will only be furthering the worst possible scenario in US history.

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 12:23:38 PM

  (0+)

That'll fix their wagon... whoever they are.

Remember everyone, if Democrats don't vote, Republicans win.

I know, Al Gore is the exact same as George Bush Jr., so votes don't count.

Got it! I'm so glad Karl Rove has everyone convinced that they're all the same.

Obviously, Al Gore would have done all the same things Bush did.

Got it!

by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 3:28:11 PM

  (0+)

The idea that there is no discernable difference between Clinton and McCain is utter nonsense.  That kind of mentality helped to get GW Bush elected twice.  I don't think he could have stolen those elections unless they had been close and they certainly should not have been, particularly the second time.

No matter what form democracy takes, you're never going to get to vote for someone with whom you agree 100% on all the issues--if you have functioning brain cells, that is, and assuming you aren't yourself a candidate.   Deal with it!

by Maxwell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 409 comments [85 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 11:10:46 AM

  (0+)

Bravo Maxwell! I can't say it enough!

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 1:09:05 PM

  (0+)

Kucinich was my first choice on the Democratic side. He is now out. I have never been one of the 'Kucinich is my ony choice' people. I will support the Democratic ticket. 8 more years of a Republican, especially a McCain presidency...scares hell out of me. McCain is the darling of the Mil Ind Complex. Who wants more military spending? Not me.

by Geno Matthias (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 17 comments) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 11:14:01 AM

  (0+)

and like you I supported Kucinich and I feel exactly the same as you do! Right now our greatest threat and indeed the greatest threat to humanity are the neocons. They must go before we do!

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 1:19:46 PM

  (0+)

I must agree with those who vehemently disagree with the esteemed author here.

How many more 4-year cycles will be allow ourselves to be beaten into submission, told we are too outlandish for society, pushed into the corner and told to "shut up"? ....Before we decide that this farce has gone on long enough. Before we collectively decide that the only way to stop this madness is to utterly reject any and all vestiges of it... To make the point that we are no longer silent vassals to a Democratic Party that has done nothing but collaborate with the criminals. Did you know, that if all the progressives, all the indi's, all the discontented were united in a NEW coalition party with no old pre-conceived baggage, one with no major platform other than:

"WE MUST MAKE THE COUNTRY SAFE TO ARGUE IN; BEFORE ARGUEING AGAIN!"

...Then we could have well over 25% of the nation on our side before even campaigning?There has never been a better time in our history for a successful 3rd party run than now. It would not easy: Ways to overcome the mainstream media bias and suppression must be found; and ways to compete financially, too. But these are not impossible dreams, they only lack the courage to try them.

No, it is not impossible to take back our country from the criminals and collaborators THIS YEAR; stop this creep into fascism, and re-invigorate our political system with sunshine. We may not get another 4 years.

We need: A coalition of politically varied, well-known national Leaders who would work towards this goal; each knowing in advance they may not be the actual candidates. And we need to break the cycle of the 2-party lie: That the Red vs. Blue chariot races, although entertaining in a Roman circus way, are in any way meaningful for change. They only serve to polarize and contain people like us from attempting to cause meaningful change.

Its time we proved them wrong: FORM A NEW COALITION THIRD PARTY!

by Steve Windisch (jibbguy) (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 360 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 at 11:22:14 AM

  (0+)