A dialogue with Those Who Wouldn't Vote Republican: Five Untouchable Symptoms - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 01-03-2008, 02:15 PM

Disclaimer:
<h3>Please....no posts promoting Ron Paul's candidacy. He does "get it", on this issue. He is not currently a viable contender for the republican party nomination, and, for the folks I'm trying to engage with here, many of his other policy positions are too objectionable for progressive leaning folks to ever accept, as a trade off for supporting Ron Paul.</h3>

I'll pick just two of these five issues: (I've highlighted them in bold)

Quote:

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2924

.....The issues we are dealing with today - health care, jobs, even a war in Iraq - <h3>are literally the same issues we dealt with in 1992. How can that possibly be considered progress?</h3> A real progressive candidate would take an apolitical problem and turn it into a mainstream political subject. None of our candidates have done that. Here are five easily mainstreamable problems ripe for the picking. There are more of these, I'm just picking at five that touch on the national security state, secrecy, economic injustice, and attacks on our civil liberties.

Subject: End the War on Drugs
Factoid: There are 1 million people put in jail for doing what Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and George Bush have done.

Marijuana is America's largest cash crop, and it is responsible for around 225,000 arrests a year. Overall, the war on drugs incarcerates around 1 million people a year. Direct spending on the war on drugs this year is $50 billion dollars, about $600 a second. Around half of high school seniors have consumed marijuana (pdf). Simply put, why do some people go to jail for marijuana and cocaine, and others run for President?

Subject: End corporate media ownership:
Factoid: General Electric, a major defense contractor and conglomerate, owns NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC.

Our media is owned and controlled by a few major companies. One of them, GE, has major defense contracts, and strong incentives for war. It also has huge interests in the financial industry. Why is this company controlling our news content again, while we are in two wars? And why did the FCC just relax ownership requirements in local areas, again?

Subject: <h3>End American empire</h3>
Factoid: As of 1998, America had troops stationed in 144 countries around the world.

There are any number of ways to talk about this issue, from disparities of foreign aid to complaints about the IMF to the war in Iraq to the CIA and blowback. The bottom line is that America has troops everywhere in the world, it's expensive, the way it is done now is a bad idea, and we need to bring them home and return to being a republic. That or we need to figure out how to be a responsible international power again and get rid of the Blackwater-style military we are building and the gunrunning vigilante CIA-style Cold War and post-Cold War nonsense.

Subject: <h3>End the war economy:</h3>
Factoid: Money for Iraq keeps passing in 'emergency' legislation to avoid being subject to budget rules.

For some reason, Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans argue that they are fiscally responsible while ignoring their votes to spend 700-800B a year on war. Libertarian charlatans like energy expert Amory Lovins think that the corporate sector and the military sector are legitimate parts of the state, but that other spending is wasteful. The whole notion of the military not being a part of the overall government is crazy, and reflective of a huge, corrupt, and Soviet-style misallocation of capital through secret budgets and fear.

Subject: End the cradle-to-prison superhighway
Factoid: 2 million people are in prison in America, by far the highest total of any other country in the world.

Think slavery has ended? Think torture is 'new'? Think again. With two million people in prison, and tens of thousands of sexual assaults every year, prison is a huge industry and a horrendous abridgment of the idea that is America.

Touching on any of these massive injustices in our economic infrastructure is something no candidate has systematically done. Only John Edwards has remotely addressed the concept of the war on terror, in a somewhat half-hearted way, and he has made 'poverty' a somewhat commonly repeated theme, though not in any meaningful sense. Clinton and Obama are disgracefully absent on these topics. Ironically, Bill Richardson, aside from his great work on residual forces, has also said that the 'war on drugs is not working', which reflects perhaps a more executive oriented and confident worldview. Chris Dodd has also advocated for marijuana decriminalization, which is a less aggressive but still laudable sentiment, especially in light of his work on core constitutional issues.

So anyway, while the insider wonk community is happy that their issues seem to be taken care of, and Democratic base voters like the different candidates we have, I find that actual progressive reframing of our political system is appearing only at the margins of our secondary candidates like Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd, and among crazy white supremacist types like Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. Each of the five hinges I've discussed starts with the verb 'end', and that was not planned when I started this post. I think it means that we must end a chapter in American history, and begin a new one.

Restoring healthy communities, healthy citizens, a healthy global order, healthy local media, and a healthy sustainable economy are the key drivers of where need to go as a country. The cancerous symptoms are all around us, and leading Democratic Presidential candidates are too corrupt and morally crippled to even begin talking about them. But we'll get there.

<h3>What are we so afraid of?</h3> We face no enemy nation on our "mainland" territorial borders. Our navy commands the sea ways, and our airpower "owns" the skies.

Quote:

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolit...RestoftheWorld
In Context: U.S. Military Spending Versus Rest of the World

While FY 2008 budget requests for US military spending are known, for most
other countries, the most recent data is from 2005 (at time of writing). Using US spending at that time, we can compare US military spending with the rest of the world:

* The US military spending was almost two-fifths of the total.
* The US military spending was almost 7 times larger than the Chinese budget, the second largest spender.
* The US military budget was almost 29 times as large as the combined spending of the six “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $14.65 billion.
* It was more than the combined spending of the next 14 nations.
* The United States and its close allies accounted for some two thirds to three-quarters of all military spending, depending on who you count as close allies (typically NATO countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea)
* The six potential “enemies,” Russia, and China together spent $139 billion, 30% of the U.S. military budget.

We have nearly 50 million residents, currently, without health insurance, a coming spike in our aging population, and we're borrowing most of the money that accomplishes this:

Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...d/spending.htm
<center><img src="http://bp2.blogger.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/R3t3jkRTJlI/AAAAAAAAAbE/mmq4b4NZgS0/s400/military.png">
<img src="http://bp3.blogger.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/R3t370RTJmI/AAAAAAAAAbM/DYewIsvGMNA/s400/military1.png">
<img src="http://bp3.blogger.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/R3t4X0RTJnI/AAAAAAAAAbU/l97FvEN8-Sc/s400/military2.png"></center>
Is this not a symptom of our societal dysfunction? What is the matter with many of us? Where are our spiritual leaders?

Did you know that it was "this bad". Are you concerned about our country being in a state of perpetual war, as an unchallenged policy?<br>
<center><img src="http://bp2.blogger.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/R3t-kkRTJpI/AAAAAAAAAbk/5p5jcPCe7w4/s400/military3.png"></center>

The democratice candidates promise even more of the same:

Hillary Clinton:

Quote:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200711...t-century.html
Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century

Hillary Rodham Clinton
From Foreign Affairs, November/December 2007

.....To help our forces recover from Iraq and prepare them to confront the full range of twenty-first-century threats, I will work to expand and modernize the military so that fighting wars no longer comes at the expense of deployments for long-term deterrence, military readiness, or responses to urgent needs at home......

John Edwards:

Quote:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200709...the-world.html
Reengaging With the World
A Return to Moral Leadership
John Edwards
From Foreign Affairs, September/October 2007

.......I will double the budget for recruitment and raise the standards for the recruitment pool so that we can reduce our reliance on felony waivers and other exceptions. In addition, I will increase our investment in the maintenance of our equipment for the safety of our troops.......

Barak Obama:

Quote:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200707...eadership.html
Renewing American Leadership
Barack Obama
From Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007

......To renew American leadership in the world, we must immediately begin working to revitalize our military. A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace. . . .

We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. . . . We should expand our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines. . . .

I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened.

We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability -- to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities.....

How is Obama's candidacy perceived in the rest of the world?

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1
FRESH FACES
He Could Care Less About Obama's Story
By Reza Aslan
Sunday, December 30, 2007; Page B03

.....That boy is angry at the United States not because its presidents have all been white. He is angry because of Washington's unconditional support for Israel; because the United States has more than 150,000 troops in Iraq; because the United States gives the dictator of his country some $2 billion a year in aid, the vast majority of which goes toward supporting a police state. He is angry at the United States because he thinks it has hegemony over almost every aspect of his world.

Now, more than one commentator has noted that on all of these issues, the next president will have very little room to maneuver. But that is exactly the point.

The next president will have to try to build a successful, economically viable Palestinian state while protecting the safety and sovereignty of Israel. He or she will have to slowly and responsibly withdraw forces from Iraq without allowing the country to implode. He or she will have to bring Iraq's neighbors, Syria and Iran, to the negotiating table while simultaneously reining in Iran's nuclear ambitions, keeping Syria out of Lebanon, reassuring Washington's Sunni Arab allies that they have not been abandoned, coaxing Russia into becoming part of the solution (rather than part of the problem) in the region, saving an independent and democratic Afghanistan from the resurgent Taliban, preparing for an inevitable succession of leadership in Saudi Arabia, persuading China to play a more constructive role in the Middle East and keeping a nuclear-armed Pakistan from self-destructing in the wake of Benazir Bhutto's assassination.

That is how the post-Bush "war on terror" must be handled. Not by "re-branding" the mess George W. Bush has made, but by actually fixing it.

In their glowing endorsement of Obama, the editors of the Boston Globe noted that "the first American president of the 21st century has not appreciated the intricate realities of our age. The next president must.".....

Isn't the lack of an actual "left" political influence....only a centrist to centrist right presence, the reason that discussion "for change" in the status quo of presently "untouchable" issues, the reason that the three democratic candidates are "centrist", at most?

So, what do we do? How do we stop the election of one of the three leading democratic candidates as our next president, and still avoid the election of someone with policies even more destructive and anti-progressive?

dksuddeth · 01-03-2008, 02:42 PM

you can't do anything. This is because the majority of americans that actually DO vote, vote on single issues, be it guns, jobs, abortion, taxes, war, terrorism, et al. Because of this, we are destined to bounce back and forth between two destructive parties of political persuasion. It's been this way since the civil war when a large enough group of people felt the need to enforce their view points on parts of the country they didn't live in.

Willravel · 01-03-2008, 02:43 PM

Would you be willing to vote third or fourth party should the become viable options, dk?

Seaver · 01-03-2008, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Subject: End the War on Drugs

The only thing in there I believe that needs to be changed, and could be done in a realistic fashion.

Elphaba · 01-03-2008, 04:29 PM

Host, I sincerly believe that it is too late in the campaign cycle to raise up the better qualified "second tier" candidates. I will vote my favorored candidate during the primary, and I will support the democrat that is chosen. It is far more important to me that no chances are taken in winning the presidency even if my ideological preferences are compromised.

Your five issues are being avoided now because all candidates are presenting their "primary" faces to gain as much general support as possible. Hillary made the mistake of believing the pundits in her inevitability and launched prematurely into campaign rhetoric and arguably it has hurt her.

I agree with you on the importance of the five issues you presented. Respectfully, none them are as crucial as the ones that concern me the most:

- One or more Supreme Court justices will need to be replaced in the next four years. Nothing, absolutely nothing is more important to our domestic policy than keeping the court from tipping further right.

- It is also critical to undo the constitutional damage that has been done by this admininstration which requires a Democratic president.

- We must regain, or at least improve our image world wide. Good grief, look at the Republican candidates! None of them are qualified for the presidency and most of them want to out-Bush Bush. We must have a Democratic president to reengage the world with diplomacy.

- The entire "War on Terror" must be reframed for what it really is. Terror is a criminal act, not a cowboy war, and needs to countered appropriately and globally.

- And the "third rail" that frightens me the most is not just the US economy, but the entire global economy. It will require an abandonment of Reaganomics which will not happen under another Republican. We have wonderful candidates for happy times, but I don't see among them the vision and leadership needed to upright this Titanic. I hope that I am wrong.

Ustwo · 01-03-2008, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

- And the "third rail" that frightens me the most is not just the US economy, but the entire global economy. It will require an abandonment of Reaganomics which will not happen under another Republican. We have wonderful candidates for happy times, but I don't see among them the vision and leadership needed to upright this Titanic. I hope that I am wrong.

Ummm what does Reaganomics have to do with the global economy? What exactly are these Reaganomics, buzz word that it is, that causes such issues? Where things different in 92-2000?

Just what must the government do to 'fix' the private sector economy?

Elphaba · 01-03-2008, 04:54 PM

Ustwo:

Given that this topic is directed to people who are not voting Republican, and I assume that you are, I'm curious about your participation other than your game to "poke a stick through the cage."

I choose not to rise to your taunt.

host · 01-03-2008, 05:10 PM

Elphaba, I don't disagree with any of your arguments.

Ever since he proposed the "censure Bush" resolution in the senate, and I found out that he was the ONLY senator to <a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313#position">vote against</a> Patriot Act I, and refuses campaign contributions from defense industry sources, I have hoped that this senator would run for president in 2008.

He claimed, last year, that the circumstances of his personal life....his divorce in 2005, would be scrutinized if he ran, and that would not be fair to privacy considerations of his ex-wife and himself.

For the good of the country, I think it is not too late to insist, in huge numbers, that he reconsider, ASAP, and run for the democratic party nomination for president:

Quote:

http://feingold.senate.gov/issues_defense_spend.html

....The fight against terrorism and the conflict in Iraq should not be used, however, as an excuse to drastically increase spending, particularly without efforts to cut the wasteful spending that already exists in the defense budget. There are astronomical economic costs associated with the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Despite my serious doubts about the wisdom of the Administration's Iraq policy, I firmly believe that the country must budget realistically for the conflict and for the reconstruction that it has committed to.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold.../20071214d.htm
Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
In Opposition to the Defense Authorization Conference Report

December 14, 2007

“I oppose the FY 2008 defense authorization conference report because it does nothing to end the President’s misguided, open-ended Iraq policy, which has over-burdened our military, weakened our national security, diminished our international credibility, and cost the lives of thousands of brave American soldiers.

“There are certain provisions of the report that I support strongly, including a pay raise for military personnel. I am pleased that the conference report contains a number of provisions I supported, including Sen. Webb’s amendment creating a Commission on Wartime Contracting to examine waste, fraud and abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the misuse of force by private security contractors, and Sen. Lautenberg’s amendment to create a Special Investigator General for Afghanistan Reconstruction.

“But on balance, I can not vote to support a conference report that defies the will of so many Wisconsinites -- and so many Americans -- by allowing the President to continue one of the worst foreign policy mistakes in the history of our nation.”

98 other senators saw nothing extraordinary enough about the administration proffering a complete "recipe" for a police state, demanding that it be passed immediatley by the legislature, just days after the 9/11 attacks, to vote Nay:

Quote:

http://web.archive.org/web/200206031.../102501at.html

Statement Of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold

On The Anti-Terrorism Bill

From The Senate Floor
October 25, 2001

....Of course, given the enormous anxiety and fears generated by the events of September 11th, it would not have been difficult to anticipate some of these reactions, both by our government and some of our people. Some have said rather cavalierly that in these difficult times we must accept some reduction in our civil liberties in order to be secure.

Of course, there is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to hold people in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more terrorists.

But that probably would not be a country in which we would want to live. And that would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that would not be America.

Preserving our freedom is one of the main reasons that we are now engaged in this new war on terrorism. We will lose that war without firing a shot if we sacrifice the liberties of the American people.

That is why I found the antiterrorism bill originally proposed by Attorney General Ashcroft and President Bush to be troubling.

The Administration's proposed bill contained vast new powers for law enforcement, some seemingly drafted in haste and others that came from the FBI's wish list that Congress has rejected in the past. You may remember that the Attorney General announced his intention to introduce a bill shortly after the September 11 attacks. He provided the text of the bill the following Wednesday, and urged Congress to enact it by the end of the week. That was plainly impossible, but the pressure to move on this bill quickly, without deliberation and debate, has been relentless ever since.

It is one thing to shortcut the legislative process in order to get federal financial aid to the cities hit by terrorism. We did that, and no one complained that we moved too quickly. It is quite another to press for the enactment of sweeping new powers for law enforcement that directly affect the civil liberties of the American people without due deliberation by the peoples' elected representatives.

Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed at least to some extent, and while this bill has been on a fast track, there has been time to make some changes and reach agreement on a bill that is less objectionable than the bill that the Administration originally proposed.

As I will discuss in a moment, I have concluded that this bill still does not strike the right balance between empowering law enforcement and protecting civil liberties. But that does not mean that I oppose everything in the bill. Indeed many of its provisions are entirely reasonable, and I hope they will help law enforcement more effectively counter the threat of terrorism.

For example, it is entirely appropriate that with a warrant the FBI be able to seize voice mail messages as well as tap a phone. It is also reasonable, even necessary, to update the federal criminal offense relating to possession and use of biological weapons. It made sense to make sure that phone conversations carried over cables would not have more protection from surveillance than conversations carried over phone lines. And it made sense to stiffen penalties and lengthen or eliminate statutes of limitation for certain terrorist crimes.

There are other non-controversial provisions in the bill that I support; those to assist the victims of crime, to streamline the application process for public safety officers benefits and increase those benefits, to provide more funds to strengthen immigration controls at our Northern borders, to expedite the hiring of translators at the FBI, and many others.

In the end, however, my focus on this bill, as Chair of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, was on those provisions that implicate our constitutional freedoms. And it was in reviewing those provisions that I came to feel that the Administration's demand for haste was inappropriate; indeed, it was dangerous. Our process in the Senate, as truncated as it was, did lead to the elimination or significant rewriting of a number of audacious proposals that I and many other members found objectionable.

For example, the original Administration proposal contained a provision that would have allowed the use in U.S. criminal proceedings against U.S. citizens of information obtained by foreign law enforcement agencies in wiretaps that would be illegal in this country. In other words, evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search overseas was to be allowed in a U.S. court.

Another provision would have broadened the criminal forfeiture laws to permit - prior to conviction - the freezing of assets entirely unrelated to an alleged crime. The Justice Department has wanted this authority for years, and Congress has never been willing to give it. For one thing, it touches on the right to counsel, since assets that are frozen cannot be used to pay a lawyer. The courts have almost uniformly rejected efforts to restrain assets before conviction unless they are assets gained in the alleged criminal enterprise. This proposal, in my view, was simply an effort on the part of the Department to take advantage of the emergency situation and get something that they've wanted to get for a long time.

The foreign wiretap and criminal forfeiture provisions were dropped from the bill that we considered in the Senate. Other provisions were rewritten based on objections that I and others raised about them. For example, the original bill contained sweeping permission for the Attorney General to get copies of educational records without a court order. The final bill requires a court order and a certification by the Attorney General that he has reason to believe that the records contain information that is relevant to an investigation of terrorism.

So the bill before us is certainly improved from the bill that the Administration sent to us on September 19, and wanted us to pass on September 21. But again, in my judgement, it does not strike the right balance between empowering law enforcement and protecting constitutional freedoms. Let me take a moment to discuss some of the shortcomings of the bill. ....

He voted for John Robert's SCOTUS appointment confirmation, and he voted against Samuel Alito's. He is too centrist for me, ordinarily, but he's the best we've got, and we need him, now!

roachboy · 01-03-2008, 05:35 PM

globalization isnt a state--its a group of processes. you cant be coherent about them if you treat them as elements of a state which simply appear, which have no history. the conditions of possiblity for globalizing capitalism--i mean the active enabling conditions--include a number of things done by the nixon administration too--internationalization of stock trade, going off the bretton woods arrangement, the dismantling of the new deal agricultural subsidy system, etc. the reagan period was largely about using enormous military expenditures to stimlate the economy--and rigging indices so that things which didnt respond werent counted. it was also about union busting, but that's another story.

end digression.
actual response to the thread to follow.

Willravel · 01-03-2008, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Host, I sincerly believe that it is too late in the campaign cycle to raise up the better qualified "second tier" candidates.

You're absolutely right. I'm moving my support from Kucinich to Obama, conditioned on Kucinich being vip. I won't support Hillary. If she's chosen, then my support shifts third party.

Five Issues:
1) Healthcare, jobs, Iraq... is this 1992?!
This has all happened before and it will all happen again... until there's REAL change. The last time we shot into Iraq like Superman saving a Kuwaiti Lois Lane, we were in, then we were out. The problem, US policy towards the ME, was never really tackled by capable leaders. Clinton jumped around because he was afraid of the press, and then was distracted by his biggest vice: heavy chicks. He was a bandaid. Healthcare? We all saw how afraid Bill was to back up Hillary back when she was selflessly championing universal healthcare. Jobs will be a problem until we get rid of the FED and revert to backed money.

2) Pax Americana?
If we closed every US military base off US soil, we could reopen every closed base in the US AND give every single member of all branches of the military a sizable, and well deserved raise. Not only that, but it would provide us the opportunity to develop healthy relationships with our allies. If we need their help, we can ask! If they need our help, we're glad to help.

3) War economy?
This one pisses me off. One of the earlier lessons in economics is that war = economic boon. This mistake was made because all my stupid econ teachers are boomers and don't know what the fuck they're talking about (fortunately, members here have restored my faith in baby boomers). I've never lived through a real war, but I've seen what conflicts do to the economy. A war economy is a weak economy because it's dependent on continued conflict.

4) BOO! Terrorism!
Only an idiot should be afraid of terrorism in the US. There are a lot of idiots. Idiots used to be afraid of communists (a more realistic fear to be sure, but none the less ignorant).

5) Um, not sure.

Elphaba · 01-03-2008, 07:24 PM

Thank you, Will. I assume that you know that your third party vote only benefits the Republicans? Nader is planning another run. Bloomberg is almost an independent certainty. Every vote to independent/fringe candidates takes a vote from the Dems. These candidates will simply return the presidency to the Republican party.

There is no guarantee that the Dem's will win. Many believe that 2008 is already fixed, including Greg Palast who has documentation for that claim.

Will, promotion of independent/third party candidates needs to begin locally. If you choose to make one of them you choice nationally, you are handing your vote to the Republican party.

Make your choice, as is your right. Please don't complain, if another Republican takes the presidency.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

globalization isnt a state--its a group of processes. you cant be coherent about them if you treat them as elements of a state which simply appear, which have no history. the conditions of possiblity for globalizing capitalism--i mean the active enabling conditions--include a number of things done by the nixon administration too--internationalization of stock trade, going off the bretton woods arrangement, the dismantling of the new deal agricultural subsidy system, etc. the reagan period was largely about using enormous military expenditures to stimlate the economy--and rigging indices so that things which didnt respond werent counted. it was also about union busting, but that's another story.

end digression.
actual response to the thread to follow.

I don't view it as a digression, but an important issue that must be addressed. Would you agree that the US will be unable to improve it's economy without considering our trading partners and other exchange issues?

"Reagan" (as a term that more accurately represents his carefully crafted persona) is not another story, it is *the* story that explains our war driven economy and the "trickle down" theory of deregulation. Deregulation created the corporatist economy that we now have. Ustwo, when he believes that his Clinton challenge of '92-'00 as some sort of viable economic criticism, simply doesn't get it. There was *no* difference in corporatist policy and that is why Hillary is so distrusted among democrats.

So, yes, I agree that a group of very complex processes are necessary to address our economic issues. I don't view it as a simple nation state problem of exchanges, as you suggest. This topic did not ask for that level of disposition, but that discussion needs to be held elsewhere.

jorgelito · 01-03-2008, 07:51 PM

I like Obama but don't feel he is ready for the presidency. He is a rather charming fellow but needs some seasoning. I like him considerably much better than Hillary and was pleasantly surprised to hear him win Iowa.

Kucinich needs some help. I like him but he is way to weak. The Dems just don't have any strong candidates outside of Hillary and that's not that great either. Now's VP, there's an interesting thought.

I hope there will be some good third party candidates that take at least 5% of the vote. Nader is a high profile third party candidate (at least he used to be) but he lost a lot of credibility in my eyes.

I hope Ron Paul runs as a 3rd party candidate too. That would be awesome.

That would give us 2 high profile 3rd party candidates to make things interesting.

Toss in Bloomberg, Forbes (maybe?), and how about Ross Perot (for ol' times sake) and things will really be interesting.

Elph, I disagree that 3rd party candidates will hand the election to the Republicans. I think it would depend on the 3rd party candidates and the Republican runner.

I don't share 100% views with Ron Paul but I like him alot cause he is at least real.

Willravel · 01-03-2008, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Thank you, Will. I assume that you know that your third party vote only benefits the Republicans?

That's a one sided way of looking at it. Who did Perot hurt? Bill and George both, though George more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

There is no guarantee that the Dem's will win. Many believe that 2008 is already fixed, including Greg Palast who has documentation for that claim.

It's fixed for Hillary or *insert potential GOP frontrunner who isn't a complete embarrassment or Ron Paul here*. This is part of why I am supporting Kucinich so much, and possibly now Obama.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Will, promotion of independent/third party candidates needs to begin locally. If you choose to make one of them you choice nationally, you are handing your vote to the Republican party.

I'm not voting Republican, so I'm not giving them anything. What I am doing is making a statement about BOTH parties. The two party system is an invisible prison. I keep bumping my head while I try to move around freely, so it's time to say something. I've never actually been a potential Dem vote, anyway. A vast majority of Democratic representatives and officials are cowards of the worst kind. My vote is earned. Potential votes are only theoretical.

This is political reality, not political theory.

Elphaba · 01-03-2008, 07:59 PM

jorgelito, you are quite right that it all depends on the Republican front runner.

But I think Bloomberg is going to be a very successful "none of the above" candidate. If Hillary is the Dem candidate and whatever gets put forward for the Republicans, he will win the "ewwww" vote.

Will, I respect your political "reality". I only suggest that at the national level there are consequences for ideological purity in candidate choice.

Shauk · 01-03-2008, 08:06 PM

hey host

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/sto...sdate=1/3/2008

I thought it was funny and relevant in a way.

jorgelito · 01-03-2008, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

That's a one sided way of looking at it. Who did Perot hurt? Bill and George both, though George more.

It's fixed for Hillary or *insert potential GOP frontrunner who isn't a complete embarrassment or Ron Paul here*. This is part of why I am supporting Kucinich so much, and possibly now Obama.

I'm not voting Republican, so I'm not giving them anything. What I am doing is making a statement about BOTH parties. The two party system is an invisible prison. I keep bumping my head while I try to move around freely, so it's time to say something. I've never actually been a potential Dem vote, anyway. A vast majority of Democratic representatives and officials are cowards of the worst kind. My vote is earned. Potential votes are only theoretical.

This is political reality, not political theory.

Same here. I am CONSERVATIVE, not Republican. Big difference. Like you will (and many others), I too am sick of the two-party system. I think my head keeps bumping into yours (move over man). My vote is also earned and believe it or not, in 4 elections, I have never voted Republican (we're talking Pres here). But hey, this year could be a first though.

Elphaba · 01-03-2008, 08:21 PM

Heh...if I could take back my bad Republican votes and bad Dem and Indie votes. I really, really, really thought Anderson was better that any other candidate. Same thing for Perot.

Willravel · 01-03-2008, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Will, I respect your political "reality". I only suggest that at the national level there are consequences for ideological purity in candidate choice.

That's exactly the wall my head hits. It's no accident that a third party vote could do damage to the lesser of two evils. With that reality, which was created intentionally, there is seemingly no way out of the prison of 'lesser of two evils'. Ouch, my head.

If people keep bumping their heads but continuing to insist they're not in prison, how will they ever get free? I, personally, have gotten about 340 people to leave both parties or being apathetic and get in touch with what it really means to vote. You pick someone to represent you! You don't vote against Hitler, you vote for Gandhi. That's the world I want to live in.

Elphaba · 01-03-2008, 08:24 PM

We have neither Hitler nor Gandhi as a choice, my friend, including the third party candidates.

Meet you in Middle Earth?

host · 01-03-2008, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

jorgelito, you are quite right that it all depends on the Republican front runner.

But I think Bloomberg is going to be a very successful "none of the above" candidate. If Hillary is the Dem candidate and whatever gets put forward for the Republicans, he will win the "ewwww" vote.

Will, I respect your political "reality". I only suggest that at the national level there are consequences for ideological purity in candidate choice.

Elphaba, not being from "these parts", (I'm not anymore either, but I lived there in 2001...) you might not be aware that Bloomberg was a life long democrat who switched to republican affiliation so he could buy the mayoralty nomination. He spent $70 million of his own money to win the race.In his re-election campaign, he spent even more, to win a much closer race.

Your choices are the potential "unity" candidate, Wall Street's Bloomberg, who has walked and talked just like any other neocon, from my POV....read it...the people backing this man as a "unifier", are a bit ridiculous in their thinking, or....at the bottom of this post, is a much more practical and realistic choice, in view of our circumstances, dontcha think?

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/us...hp&oref=slogin
Bloomberg Moves Closer to Running for President
By SAM ROBERTS
Published: December 31, 2007

.....Former Senator David L. Boren of Oklahoma, who organized the session with former Senator Sam Nunn, a Democrat of Georgia, suggested in an interview that if the prospective major party nominees failed within two months to formally embrace bipartisanship and address the fundamental challenges facing the nation, "I would be among those who would urge Mr. Bloomberg to very seriously consider running for president as an independent."....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews
Bipartisan Group Eyes Independent Bid
First, Main Candidates Urged To Plan 'Unity' Government

By David S. Broder
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 30, 2007; Page A04

New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a potential independent candidate for president, has scheduled a meeting next week with a dozen leading Democrats and Republicans, who will join him in challenging the major-party contenders to spell out their plans for forming a "government of national unity" to end the gridlock in Washington.....

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason.../22/bloomberg/
Bloomberg's ambitions
The billionaire mayor of New York could easily fund a bid for the presidency. But what are his political convictions?

By Joe Conason

...Dating back to his infatuation with Bush, the mayor has always been an enthusiastic supporter of the war in Iraq. He marched lockstep in the Bush drive toward invasion when <a href="http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/html/2002b/address_un_assembly.html">he [Bloomberg] addressed the United Nations</a> General Assembly in September 2002: "Freedom comes at a price, and tragically, sometimes that price is the commitment to defend freedom by arms. America has been, is, and always will be willing to do its duty -- to sacrifice even its own blood, so that people everywhere can live as individuals responsible for their own destinies." (As Wayne Barrett once <a href="http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0542,barrett1,68949,5.html">pointed out</a> in the Village Voice, the man spouting this brave talk got out of the Vietnam draft because his feet are flat.)

Bloomberg's pro-war rhetoric dutifully echoed the White House line connecting Saddam Hussein with al-Qaida and 9/11, almost as if Karl Rove had programmed his brain. "I'm voting for George W. Bush and it's mainly because I think we have to strike back at terrorists," he said in September 2004. "To argue that Saddam Hussein wasn't a terrorist is ridiculous. He used mustard gas, or some kind of gas, against his own people."..

Quote:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...he_white_house
The Republican mayor of New York has become the party's fiercest internal critic. But can his "billionaire populism" bridge the nation's blue-red divide?

BEN WALLACE-WELLSPosted Aug 22, 2006 9:52 AM

....Bloomberg, in fact, identifies strongly with the defeated Democrat from Connecticut. "I think what they're doing to Joe Lieberman is a disgrace," the mayor volunteered when I met with him in his offices in July, shortly before anti-war bloggers helped Ned Lamont beat Lieberman in the primary. . . . A few days later, Bloomberg was offering to campaign for Lieberman.....

Quote:

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/054...1,68949,5.html
Mayor Mute
Bloomberg gives Bush a four-year pass at city's expense
by Wayne Barrett
October 18th, 2005 11:05 AM

...Even though the City Council passed a resolution opposing the war, Bloomberg called an old friend, Paul Wolfowitz, to express his desire to host a ticker tape parade "to say thank you," apparently as unaware as the "Mission Accomplished" president that the troops would not be coming home for years. Bloomberg actually contributed $5 million to the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Affairs in the late '90s, when war architect Wolfowitz was dean. . . .

Even before the war, Bloomberg brought his mother and daughter to the United Nations, where he addressed the General Assembly a day after Bush did in September 2002. Echoing Bush's warnings that the U.S. would go it alone if the U.N. didn't act, Bloomberg "praised" Bush's war on terror "and offered support for an attack on Iraq," according to the Daily News....

Quote:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1
NYC Mayor Advocates U.S. Worker Database
May 24 05:49 PM US/Eastern
By SARA KUGLER
Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK (AP) - Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg thrust himself into the national immigration debate Wednesday, advocating a plan that would establish a DNA or fingerprint database to track and verify all legal U.S. workers....

... Donna Lieberman, director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said a DNA or fingerprint database "doesn't sound like the free society we think we're living in."

"It will inevitably be used not just by employers but by law enforcement, government agencies, schools and all over the private sector," she said.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Aug30.html
Text of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's Speech at the Republican National Convention

FDCH E-Media, Inc.
Monday, August 30, 2004; 12:22 PM

I want to thank President Bush for supporting New York City and changing the homeland security funding formula and for leading the global war on terrorism.

(APPLAUSE)

The president deserves our support.

(APPLAUSE)

We are here to support him.

(APPLAUSE)

And I am here to support him.

(APPLAUSE)

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...56C0A9629C8B63
On Iraq War, Bloomberg Lends Support To First Lady
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
Published: May 11, 2004

...But there he was yesterday, throwing in his words of support for the president's decision to invade Iraq - promoting one of the notions that is central to the rationale for the attack, that the conflict was justified by what happened on Sept. 11.

''Let me add something to that,'' Mr. Bloomberg said after Mrs. Bush gave her defense of her husband and his decision to go to war. ''Don't forget that the war started not very many blocks from here.'' ...

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C0A9629C8B63
Bloomberg, Looking to Convention, Restrains Cheer for Bush

By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
Published: January 29, 2004

...We are going to get George W. Bush re-elected as president of the United States! We are going to carry New York City and New York State. Everybody thinks I'm crazy, but I think we can do it...

Quote:

http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Mike_Bloomberg_Drugs.htm
Mike Bloomberg on Drugs

"You bet I smoked pot; and I enjoyed it"
The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws Foundation, (NORML), launched a new $500,000 ad campaign in New York City this week, urging an end to the massive number of arrests of pot smokers in this city, and features NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg's quote on his own use of pot. "You bet I did. And I enjoyed it," said then Mayoral candidate Bloomberg just before the elections last year when a New York magazine reporter asked about his pot use.

"I'm not thrilled they're using my name. I suppose there's that First Amendment that gets in the way of me stopping it," Bloomberg told reporters when informed of the NORML ads graced with His Honor's face and attributing the quote to him. But Bloomberg added that the NYPD will continue to vigorously enforce the laws. The campaign includes a full-page ad in the New York Times, as well as posters for bus stops, buses, and phone booths. There are also two 60-second radio ads that will be played by the top stations in the city.
Source: Preston Peet, www.drugwar.com Apr 10, 2002

NYPD will continue to vigorously enforce drug laws
[When he learned that NORML would use his image and his words on pro-marijuana advertisements, Bloomberg said] that the NYPD will continue to vigorously enforce the laws [against marijuana use]. In 1992, when former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani took office, there were just 2,000 arrests of pot smokers. Until that time, cops would usually issue a ticket and fine instead of arresting people, yet by 2000, NYC was arresting approximately 50,000 people for simple use and possession every year, nearly a 1,000 a week. The NYPD now runs most every pot smoker they catch through the criminal court system, which can take anywhere from 24 to 72 hours, or longer, subjecting marijuana users to dangers far above and beyond any resulting from their simple use of pot, and the city will oftentimes attempt to coerce those arrested to plea out to charges they don't deserve under the law.

Quote:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/hor...rtisanship.php
Memo To Bloomberg And Company: The Way To Reduce "Partisan Gridlock" Is To Further Weaken The GOP.
December 31, 2007 -

...Partisan gridlock happens because people -- and by extension, political parties -- disagree about stuff. One party wants to do one thing on a particular issue. Another party says No. The first party offers a few concessions. The second party still says No. That's where "partisan gridlock" comes from -- underlying disagreement on issues -- and in our current case, the fault for our "partisan gridlock" isn't equally distributed between the two parties. Rather, it's almost exclusively the fault of the Republicans.

You aren't allowed to say this, but it's true. If you don't believe me, ask the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. They proposed a bunch of solutions to Iraq. The Democrats largely embraced these solutions. The Republicans, by contrast, didn't. As a result, the ISG's proposals didn't happen -- even though they had been authored by a distinguished bipartisan panel. The Republicans have been the near-exclusive cause of gridlock <a href="http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/07/good_chart.php">on multiple other issues, too</a> -- issues upon which there is already majority agreement on how to proceed. <h3>In reality, the best way to end partisan gridlock is to further weaken the Republican Party, which is tying government in knots and preventing it from carrying out the will of the majority on a host of fronts.</h3>

Holding out the promise of bipartisan unity without saying why it is that your stances on issues will do anything at all to create that unity -- as Bloomberg and friends are doing here -- is just a sucker's game designed to get these folks the sort of fawning attention that they're already getting. One hopes that the press will start asking these worthies some tough questions about where they stand on stuff and why we should be listening to them.

Elphaba, could congressional democrats have been any more acomodating to president Bush than they have been during the past year? Hasn't his response been to veto bills that they passed at a rate heretofore unseen during his entire presidency?

ubertuber · 01-03-2008, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shauk

hey host

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/sto...sdate=1/3/2008

I thought it was funny and relevant in a way.

If this is supposed to be relevant to the discussion, please add more so we know how that works.

ObieX · 01-03-2008, 10:59 PM

If only we could shift only 23 of those 623 billion dollars to things like ending world hunger. Or how about just 1 for those folks down in New Orleans. Instead we spend a couple hundred thousand dollars to blow up some guy in a desert someplace. The answers to the problems politicians have been talking about for decades has been sitting in the budget for our military. But then again if we fixed all these problems what would the politicians have to run on? Being female? Having black skin? Loving Jeebus? Oh, wait.. those are already the core issues of our politics in this country

dksuddeth · 01-04-2008, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ObieX

If only we could shift only 23 of those 623 billion dollars to things like ending world hunger. Or how about just 1 for those folks down in New Orleans. Instead we spend a couple hundred thousand dollars to blow up some guy in a desert someplace. The answers to the problems politicians have been talking about for decades has been sitting in the budget for our military. But then again if we fixed all these problems what would the politicians have to run on? Being female? Having black skin? Loving Jeebus? Oh, wait.. those are already the core issues of our politics in this country

This is part of the issue that I brought up in post #2. People think that they need to deal with issues in parts of the world, country, or state that they don't live in, yet ignore those very issues in their own county, city, neighborhood. While compassion for the world hunger problem is all sweet and emotionally heartfelt, what does it do for folks living underneath the interstate overpass 15 miles from your house? Or the kids on the other side of town who wear the same set of clothes 3 days in a row because they don't have anything else, or the lonely old widow 5 doors down from you that eats cat food because her social security check barely pays her prescription bills?
One of the main reasons we have such a bloated federal government now is because people in small communities saw huge dollars in federal handouts, therefore giving them all this money and power, but does it accomplish what the people originally intended? not even close. As history would dictate, those in control of the money, rarely do with it what was intended. Is there any incentive to change this? of course not.
If you truly want to make a change in the world, start in your own neighborhood and take the power away from a bloated central government that isn't doing what you wanted it to.

roachboy · 01-04-2008, 09:30 AM

i was watching a film last night called "far from poland"--it's a curious documentary about the solidarity movement in its early phases--the period of the general strike before the initial government crackdown. a line that kep coming up: 10 million people are remaking their world, in real time: they are remaking language, they are remaking social relations--they are taking control of social and economic relations, and they're doing it collectively.

i liked that. it reminded me that it's possible--you know, revolution, but not one directed by some military cadre--revolution that follows from the wholesale withdrawing of consent from the existing order and the practical remaking of social relations.
revolution is in a sense easy.
we just have to withdraw consent and do something else.
but we have to be able not only to imagine that its possible, we have to know it.
and even if that did not result in a revolution, it'd go a long way toward shaking the foundations of this dismal, mediocre order that we presently live with.

i think the existing order is incoherent.
i think that the mediocrities that are running for president are walking talking demonstrations of the incoherence of the existing order.
i think that the main thing holding this order together at this point is fear. people have allowed themselves to be convinced that the existing order is rational because it exists, that it defines the limits of the possible as it defines debate parameters.
people are willing to endure incoherence because they cannot imagine an alternative--and for those who cannot imagine an alternative, there is no alternative--we collectively perform in politics the results of our own inability to imagine that the idiocy we live with is not the only option.
so long as we collectively think this, we are right--so long as we think this, we are also well and truly fucked.

so the underlying problem is ideological, i think: the lack of a viable counter-discourse, the lack of a new radical movement--which for teh existing order would function as a feedback loop AND as an adversary and so would force that order to adapt to conditions that are not of its own making.

military expenditures for example, remain at bloated, obscene levels in part as a legacy of the reagan period, in part as an element that holds together the conservative coalition, in part as an expression of the incoherence of neoconservative ideology in general.
the demonstration of that incoherence is the war in iraq.
there really is nothing more that need be said on this.
so military expenditures are an element within--and that holds together--the republican political machine. the democrat's machine is symmetrical, but involves different factions of the dominant order. both parties operate within the general framework of neoliberalism. both parties, therefore, offer nothing more than faction-switches within the context of the existing, incoherent ideological context.

so the only pressure that is brought to bear to scale back military expenditure and transfer those funds to other areas comes from the rituals of faction rotation.
but since there is no particular disagreement at the level of overall ideology between the parties, there is nothing but faction rotation.
we confuse that with a viable political spectrum of choices--and we kid ourselves. but hey, if you're afraid, you look to anything that will make you less afraid. so it is reassuring to imagine that this ideological uniformity is coherent--it doesn't have to *be* coherent--it is coherent because it exists and because it exists, its functions are therapeutic first and foremost.

this is a big reason why i will vote for the lesser evil, but at the same time i think american politics is a huge, pathetic joke.
another way: fear of dissent results in a tendency to self-enclosure. self-enclosure is also a self-blinding. that you are blind, however, does not mean that you cease to function: rather you function in a context that is basically one in which you substitute what you want to see for what is.
this is among the fastest ways to make incoherence dangerous by making it total.

thus spake my inner anarchist.

fastom · 01-04-2008, 10:48 PM

Finally some sense.
The war... it's not really a war, there are no enemies it's simply a way to support the businesses that support the politicians. Kind of like the mayor buying new cop cars from the Chevy dealer who gave him five grand for his campaign but on a really huge scale. When 623 billion bucks goes to fight the war how exactly is that done? Are huge bricks of $100 bills dropped on the enemy to squash them? No, defense (more like offense) contractors make bombs and guns and tanks and whatnot. Those get sent over to the poor saps in the field who get to use them up so more can be made. The war can't be won because there is no goal. If everyone in Iraq was killed would that end Terrorism?

The whole system needs to change, why are there military bases in Germany now? Ya think Hitler is gonna rise from the grave to retaliate? Same with so many other countries. It would be as simple as mind your f$%&in' business and there would be no need for that ridiculous waste. Are people from Switzerland hated around the world? Does Switzerland have spies and troops in every country?

01-03-2008, 02:42 PM	#2 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	you can't do anything. This is because the majority of americans that actually DO vote, vote on single issues, be it guns, jobs, abortion, taxes, war, terrorism, et al. Because of this, we are destined to bounce back and forth between two destructive parties of political persuasion. It's been this way since the civil war when a large enough group of people felt the need to enforce their view points on parts of the country they didn't live in. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

01-03-2008, 04:29 PM	#5 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Host, I sincerly believe that it is too late in the campaign cycle to raise up the better qualified "second tier" candidates. I will vote my favorored candidate during the primary, and I will support the democrat that is chosen. It is far more important to me that no chances are taken in winning the presidency even if my ideological preferences are compromised. Your five issues are being avoided now because all candidates are presenting their "primary" faces to gain as much general support as possible. Hillary made the mistake of believing the pundits in her inevitability and launched prematurely into campaign rhetoric and arguably it has hurt her. I agree with you on the importance of the five issues you presented. Respectfully, none them are as crucial as the ones that concern me the most: - One or more Supreme Court justices will need to be replaced in the next four years. Nothing, absolutely nothing is more important to our domestic policy than keeping the court from tipping further right. - It is also critical to undo the constitutional damage that has been done by this admininstration which requires a Democratic president. - We must regain, or at least improve our image world wide. Good grief, look at the Republican candidates! None of them are qualified for the presidency and most of them want to out-Bush Bush. We must have a Democratic president to reengage the world with diplomacy. - The entire "War on Terror" must be reframed for what it really is. Terror is a criminal act, not a cowboy war, and needs to countered appropriately and globally. - And the "third rail" that frightens me the most is not just the US economy, but the entire global economy. It will require an abandonment of Reaganomics which will not happen under another Republican. We have wonderful candidates for happy times, but I don't see among them the vision and leadership needed to upright this Titanic. I hope that I am wrong. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

01-03-2008, 04:54 PM	#7 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Ustwo: Given that this topic is directed to people who are not voting Republican, and I assume that you are, I'm curious about your participation other than your game to "poke a stick through the cage." I choose not to rise to your taunt. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

01-03-2008, 05:35 PM	#9 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	globalization isnt a state--its a group of processes. you cant be coherent about them if you treat them as elements of a state which simply appear, which have no history. the conditions of possiblity for globalizing capitalism--i mean the active enabling conditions--include a number of things done by the nixon administration too--internationalization of stock trade, going off the bretton woods arrangement, the dismantling of the new deal agricultural subsidy system, etc. the reagan period was largely about using enormous military expenditures to stimlate the economy--and rigging indices so that things which didnt respond werent counted. it was also about union busting, but that's another story. end digression. actual response to the thread to follow. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-03-2008, 07:59 PM	#14 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	jorgelito, you are quite right that it all depends on the Republican front runner. But I think Bloomberg is going to be a very successful "none of the above" candidate. If Hillary is the Dem candidate and whatever gets put forward for the Republicans, he will win the "ewwww" vote. Will, I respect your political "reality". I only suggest that at the national level there are consequences for ideological purity in candidate choice. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007 Last edited by Elphaba; 01-03-2008 at 08:02 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

01-03-2008, 02:43 PM	#3 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Would you be willing to vote third or fourth party should the become viable options, dk?

01-03-2008, 07:51 PM	#12 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	I like Obama but don't feel he is ready for the presidency. He is a rather charming fellow but needs some seasoning. I like him considerably much better than Hillary and was pleasantly surprised to hear him win Iowa. Kucinich needs some help. I like him but he is way to weak. The Dems just don't have any strong candidates outside of Hillary and that's not that great either. Now's VP, there's an interesting thought. I hope there will be some good third party candidates that take at least 5% of the vote. Nader is a high profile third party candidate (at least he used to be) but he lost a lot of credibility in my eyes. I hope Ron Paul runs as a 3rd party candidate too. That would be awesome. That would give us 2 high profile 3rd party candidates to make things interesting. Toss in Bloomberg, Forbes (maybe?), and how about Ross Perot (for ol' times sake) and things will really be interesting. Elph, I disagree that 3rd party candidates will hand the election to the Republicans. I think it would depend on the 3rd party candidates and the Republican runner. I don't share 100% views with Ron Paul but I like him alot cause he is at least real.

01-03-2008, 08:06 PM	#15 (permalink)
Shauk Confused Adult Location: Spokane, WA	hey host http://timesunion.com/AspStories/sto...sdate=1/3/2008 I thought it was funny and relevant in a way.

01-03-2008, 08:21 PM	#17 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Heh...if I could take back my bad Republican votes and bad Dem and Indie votes. I really, really, really thought Anderson was better that any other candidate. Same thing for Perot. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

01-03-2008, 08:24 PM	#19 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	We have neither Hitler nor Gandhi as a choice, my friend, including the third party candidates. Meet you in Middle Earth? __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

01-03-2008, 10:59 PM	#22 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	If only we could shift only 23 of those 623 billion dollars to things like ending world hunger. Or how about just 1 for those folks down in New Orleans. Instead we spend a couple hundred thousand dollars to blow up some guy in a desert someplace. The answers to the problems politicians have been talking about for decades has been sitting in the budget for our military. But then again if we fixed all these problems what would the politicians have to run on? Being female? Having black skin? Loving Jeebus? Oh, wait.. those are already the core issues of our politics in this country __________________ We Must Dissent.

01-04-2008, 09:30 AM	#24 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i was watching a film last night called "far from poland"--it's a curious documentary about the solidarity movement in its early phases--the period of the general strike before the initial government crackdown. a line that kep coming up: 10 million people are remaking their world, in real time: they are remaking language, they are remaking social relations--they are taking control of social and economic relations, and they're doing it collectively. i liked that. it reminded me that it's possible--you know, revolution, but not one directed by some military cadre--revolution that follows from the wholesale withdrawing of consent from the existing order and the practical remaking of social relations. revolution is in a sense easy. we just have to withdraw consent and do something else. but we have to be able not only to imagine that its possible, we have to know it. and even if that did not result in a revolution, it'd go a long way toward shaking the foundations of this dismal, mediocre order that we presently live with. i think the existing order is incoherent. i think that the mediocrities that are running for president are walking talking demonstrations of the incoherence of the existing order. i think that the main thing holding this order together at this point is fear. people have allowed themselves to be convinced that the existing order is rational because it exists, that it defines the limits of the possible as it defines debate parameters. people are willing to endure incoherence because they cannot imagine an alternative--and for those who cannot imagine an alternative, there is no alternative--we collectively perform in politics the results of our own inability to imagine that the idiocy we live with is not the only option. so long as we collectively think this, we are right--so long as we think this, we are also well and truly fucked. so the underlying problem is ideological, i think: the lack of a viable counter-discourse, the lack of a new radical movement--which for teh existing order would function as a feedback loop AND as an adversary and so would force that order to adapt to conditions that are not of its own making. military expenditures for example, remain at bloated, obscene levels in part as a legacy of the reagan period, in part as an element that holds together the conservative coalition, in part as an expression of the incoherence of neoconservative ideology in general. the demonstration of that incoherence is the war in iraq. there really is nothing more that need be said on this. so military expenditures are an element within--and that holds together--the republican political machine. the democrat's machine is symmetrical, but involves different factions of the dominant order. both parties operate within the general framework of neoliberalism. both parties, therefore, offer nothing more than faction-switches within the context of the existing, incoherent ideological context. so the only pressure that is brought to bear to scale back military expenditure and transfer those funds to other areas comes from the rituals of faction rotation. but since there is no particular disagreement at the level of overall ideology between the parties, there is nothing but faction rotation. we confuse that with a viable political spectrum of choices--and we kid ourselves. but hey, if you're afraid, you look to anything that will make you less afraid. so it is reassuring to imagine that this ideological uniformity is coherent--it doesn't have to be coherent--it is coherent because it exists and because it exists, its functions are therapeutic first and foremost. this is a big reason why i will vote for the lesser evil, but at the same time i think american politics is a huge, pathetic joke. another way: fear of dissent results in a tendency to self-enclosure. self-enclosure is also a self-blinding. that you are blind, however, does not mean that you cease to function: rather you function in a context that is basically one in which you substitute what you want to see for what is. this is among the fastest ways to make incoherence dangerous by making it total. thus spake my inner anarchist. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-04-2008, 10:48 PM	#25 (permalink)
fastom Psycho Location: way out west	Finally some sense. The war... it's not really a war, there are no enemies it's simply a way to support the businesses that support the politicians. Kind of like the mayor buying new cop cars from the Chevy dealer who gave him five grand for his campaign but on a really huge scale. When 623 billion bucks goes to fight the war how exactly is that done? Are huge bricks of $100 bills dropped on the enemy to squash them? No, defense (more like offense) contractors make bombs and guns and tanks and whatnot. Those get sent over to the poor saps in the field who get to use them up so more can be made. The war can't be won because there is no goal. If everyone in Iraq was killed would that end Terrorism? The whole system needs to change, why are there military bases in Germany now? Ya think Hitler is gonna rise from the grave to retaliate? Same with so many other countries. It would be as simple as mind your f$%&in' business and there would be no need for that ridiculous waste. Are people from Switzerland hated around the world? Does Switzerland have spies and troops in every country?