Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

To Endorse - or Not To Endorse? That is the Question (31 posts)

  1. JohnA
    Member

    What are we to make of Barack Obama?

    There are those who would argue that, by definition, his ascendancy within the democratic party makes him guilty – by association - and part of a system that is inherently corrupt. There are those who would argue that it is foolish to believe that he could possibly possess the values he chooses to espouse.

    But – I wonder also if it is possible to be too jaded – and that perhaps there IS hope in all of this. Perhaps it is possible Mr. Obama is a politician with a moral compass? They are rare – but certainly it is possible. Nothing is impossible. It certainly is not impossible that a man with real integrity COULD take control of this nation. Nothing is impossible.

    I for one am choosing to endorse Barack Obama for president. Besides the obviously hideous alternative of John McCain – I also reserve the right to believe in Barack Obama.

    I have no rosetta stone to decipher the souls of men like Obama. And I recognize the folly of believing in anything other than my own heart. I do not know Obama. Heis merely a specter – and ghost in the machinery of our mass media. But my heart tells me that nothing is impossible – and this may be the last best chance we have to restore sane and responsible leadership to this nation.

    I for one choose to endorse Senator Barack Obama for president.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  2. truthmod
    Administrator

    I see there's been some discussion about this over on Truth Action

    http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4139

    Many people in the 9/11 TM seem to be utterly skeptical, even angrily resentful or hateful towards Obama. I understand that some of this stems from realistic and sometimes factual criticism of Obama's record and credentials. But some of it also seems particularly mean-spirited, irrational, and misplaced. This kind of aggressive attack-critique seems to be coming from the right-wing and the disinfo-wing of the 9/11 TM.

    Dicktater on the Truth Action thread wrote:

    I'm not bigoted. My seething hate for both Obama and McCain is so near equal that I couldn't say who I hate most.

    He then proceeds to quote a list of Obama attacks, i.e.:

    5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - NOT EXACTLY, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn’t allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.

    6.) My Name is African Swahili - NOT EXACTLY, your name is Arabic and ‘Baraka’ (from which Barack came) means ‘blessed’ in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.

    7.) I Never Practiced Islam - NOT EXACTLY, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years, until your wife made you change, so you could run for office.


    38.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - NOT EXACTLY, your plan leaves us all to pay for the 15,000,000 who don’t have to buy it.

    Clearly this stuff is directly out the right wing playbook. These are not substantive critiques. And the health care thing!? Come on.

    In this thread, we recently saw Phil Berg (and some mysterious truther) pushing the idea that Obama's birth certificate is forged and he should therefore be disqualified:

    http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/1203?replies=...


    We shouldn't have to "settle" for a candidate we don't believe in. We also shouldn't be so jaded that we can't appreciate legitimate differences between establishment politicians. We can list a bunch stuff Obama has voted for or done that makes him look bad, but we can also choose to look at what differentiates him from the alternative and the last 8 years, and there is plenty of that. We can also support/vote McKinney if we choose, or Ron Paul, or Nader. Or McCain, for that matter.

    But it is good to be consistent, and that's not something we always have in our movement. We've got die-hard libertarians for Ron Paul who think global warming is a hoax, who then turn around and support Cynthia McKinney, but who make merciless and slanderous attacks on Obama. We've got people who believe in universal health care listening to Alex Jones and supporting Ron Paul, because he's supposedly "a truther." We've got to be a little more clear-headed than this.

    The 9/11 TM is full of newly-opened minds, and many naive political beginners who are susceptible to manipulation.

    I think I made the same remark 4 years ago: I would rather fight Obama than McCain. I think all of us who have an interest in progressing society towards more equality, democracy, justice, and truth, have undeniable reasons to be pro-Obama (at least when given the choice between the two major candidates) . Sadly, I think the main problem is that there are many people in the 9/11 TM who do not have an interest in progressing these values or who may follow leaders who do not.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  3. Victronix
    Member

    We can list a bunch stuff Obama has voted for or done that makes him look bad

    It's not about it making him 'look bad' it's about the real-life outcome of those votes. He helped create the Bush agenda. One can argue that it's all just politics, or ABB, which is fine if you're in a race to the bottom. Each time you vote for someone out of fear, you are participating in a game they have set up. When you vote out of pride and conviction, you are probably doing something meaningful, and likely it is on the level of a city council because little that is worthy of strong support happens above that level.

    From: The Avocado Declaration

    The two-party system is a self-correcting mechanism that shifts back and forth between the two parties, and within different wings of those parties, to maintain corporate political control. Loyalty to the two-party system is inculcated in the educational system, and our electoral laws are rigged to discriminate against third parties.

    Many lower elected officials among the Democrats and even some Republicans who defend the Constitution of the United States are voting to oppose the USA PATRIOT Act at the local level. Even many middle level Democrats have conflicting views and some time take progressive stances in concert with the Green Party's platform. These individuals live in a contradiction with the Party they belong to. While we can and should join with them behind specific issues, we do not adopt their error of belonging to a party that is against the interest of the people, that is pro-corporate and is against the rule of law.

    The Democratic Party allows its lower level representatives to present themselves as opposed to the war. Some of its leaders have begun to take on an appearance of disagreeing with "how" the policies of Bush are being implemented. The Democratic Party has unleashed a campaign to divide and conquer those opposed to the pro-war policies. On one hand it tries to appear sympathetic to anti-war sentiment while on the other it tries to silence voices opposed to Bush's policies. http://www.cagreens.org/longbeach/avocado.htm#dec

    Posted 16 years ago #
  4. JohnA
    Member

    "It's not about it making him 'look bad' it's about the real-life outcome of those votes. He helped create the Bush agenda."

    I will come back to this quote later.

    I suppose we could stand this debate on it's head by leveling the same charges against the more acetic progressives who impose unrealistic standards on our candidates..

    I can remember the same debate in 2000 begging my more progressive friends to NOT vote for Nader. Apparently Gore was not pure enough a candidate.

    These progessives 'made' the Bush agenda by seating him in the White House.

    Is there any debate that Gore would have been a better choice? Would 9/11 even have happened? This is not some abstract debate. 1 Million people dead in Iraq? How do you reconcile that in your logic?

    The right wing accuses Obama of being the most liberal Senator in Congress. The progressive purists attmpt to paint him as a neo-con in sheeps clothing.

    So what are we to do? Reject Obama's differences from McCain and seek to undermine his base support?

    And what of his record on issues of social justice? Reject it all as fraudulent? I will add a post after this one with an example.

    And what of his stated positions on energy and envirnmental concerns? Reject it all out of hand simply on the basis of the progressive purists who take issue with several of his votes in congress?

    How is this any different from PUMA who seek to hand McCain a victory by splintering Obama's base?

    And what would u tell the millions who cast their vote for Obama to protect women's choice to do what they wish with their own bodies - and the MANY other issues that Obama symbolizes to them? Stay home? Not vote? Vote for Nader?

    Are all things equal? Obama is NO different from McCain?

    That is simply politically adolescent to suggest. This is NO time to undermine the voices of millions of Americans who are demanding change.

    Do we draw NO distinctions between Obama and McCain? Would there be NO difference between Obama's supreme court choices and McCains? We we need another Scalia or Thomas on the Supreme Court?

    And what of a McCain administration with Lieberman and Guiliani and the neo-cons making policy?

    Are u suggesting Obama's imperfect voting record creates a moral equivalence between these two men - and what their administrations may look like?

    Ridiculous.

    Why is it that progressive purists cannot understand that despite being part of the same corrupt system these imperfect men are STILL radically different and the WORLD may not be able to withstand 4 more years of American neo-conservative policies.

    And why is it so easy for progressives to dismiss the groundswell of sentiment of MILLIONS of Americans who are rising up to finally demand change? You find humor in calling them Kookaide drinkers? How arrogant and superior is that? This is not about Obama. This is about a powerful tide of public sentiment for POSITIVE change. When was the last time we even SAW that happen in America?

    And u seek to tell these people they are wrong? You seek to disenfranchise these people? You seek to splinter this hard fought-for unity behind the first black candidate - embraced by middle America - calling for social reform and environmental stewardship and diplomacy and fiscal responsibility and responsible governance?

    Have you NO sense of proportion?

    I do not endorse Obama because i believe him to be of pure soul and a savior. I am endorsing the hopes and dreams of millions of people worldwide who are giving voice to these critical issues to avert the catastrophe inherent in a McCain presidency.

    I am endorsing a message who's time has come in the form of millions of people.

    Once Obama is president it will be our job to keep him honest. But let's be real here. Obama is our only and best hope to putting those millions of voices into action and creating a mandate for change in this country. There are UNFORTUNATELY only two choices in this election - and the stakes could not POSSIBLY be higher.

    Sent from my iPhone 3G

    Posted 16 years ago #
  5. JohnA
    Member

    Here is Barack Obama’s record on rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina.

    Sept. 2, 2005: Obama holds press conference urging Illinoisans to contribute to the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. Sept. 5, 2005: Obama goes to Houston to visit evacuees with Presidents Clinton and Bush. Sept. 7, 2005: Obama introduces bill to create a national emergency family locator system Sept. 8, 2005: Obama introduces bill to create a National Emergency Volunteers Corps. Sept. 8, 2005: Obama co-sponsors the Katrina Emergency Relief Act of 2005 introduced by Senator Harry Reid Sept. 8, 2005: Obama co-sponsors the Hurricane Katrina Bankruptcy Relief and Community Protection Act of 2005 introduced by Senator Russ Feingold Sept. 12, 2005: Obama introduces legislation requiring states to create an emergency evacuation plan for society’s most vulnerable Sept. 15, 2005: Obama issues public response to President Bush’s speech about Gulf Coast rebuilding. Sept. 21, 2005: Obama co-sponsors bill to establish a Katrina commission to investigate response to the disaster introduced by Hillary Clinton Sept. 21, 2005: Obama appears on NPR to discuss the role of poverty in Hurricane Katrina. Sept. 22, 2005: Obama and Coburn’s Hurricane Katrina financial oversight bill unanimously passes Senate committee. Sept. 22, 2005: Obama’s amendment requiring evacuation plans unanimously passes Senate committee. Sept. 28, 2005: Obama and Coburn issue statement about the need for a Chief Financial Officer to oversee the financial mismanagement and suspicious contracts occurring in the reconstruction process Sept. 29, 2005: Obama and Coburn investigate possible FEMA refusal of free cruise ship offer Oct. 6, 2005: Obama and Coburn issue statement on FEMA Decision to re-bid Katrina contracts Oct. 6, 2005: Obama co-sponsors Gulf Coast Infrastructure Redevelopment and Recovery Act of 2005. Oct. 21, 2005: Obama releases statement decrying the extension of FEMA director, Michael “Brownie” Brown’s contract. Obama calls Brown’s contract extension, “unconscionable.” Nov. 17, 2005: Obama and Coburn introduce legislation asking FEMA to immediately re-bid all Katrina reconstruction contracts. Feb. 1, 2006: Obama gives Senate floor speech on his legislation to help children affected by Hurricane Katrina Feb. 2, 2006: Obama introduces legislation to help low-income children affected by Hurricane Katrina Feb. 23, 2006: Obama issues statement responding to a White House report on Hurricane Katrina. Obama noted that the top two recommendations that the report had for the federal government were initiatives he had been working on since immediately after the storm hit. Obama called the administration’s response “delinquent.” May 2, 2006: Obama gives speech about no-bid contracts in Hurricane Katrina reconstruction May 4, 2006: Obama’s legislation to end no-bid contracts for Hurricane Katrina reconstruction passed the Senate. June 15, 2006: Obama and Coburn announce legislation to require amendment to create competitive bidding for Hurricane Katrina reconstruction for federal contracts over $500,000. Although it passed previously, the language was stripped in conference. June 15, 2006: Obama releases podcast about his pending Katrina reconstruction legislation in the Senate. June 16, 2006: Obama and Coburn get no-bid Hurricane Katrina reconstruction amendment into Department of Defense authorization bill. July 14, 2006: Obama and Coburn’s legislation to end abuse of no-bid contracts passes senate as amendment to Department of Defense authorization bill. August 11, 2006: Obama visits Xavier University in New Orleans to give Commencement address August 14, 2006: Obama and Coburn ask FEMA to address ballooning no-bid contracts for Gulf Coast reconstruction Sept. 29, 2006: Obama and Coburn legislation to prevent abuse of no-bid contracts in the wake of disaster passes Senate to be sent to President’s desk to become law. Feb. 2007-Present: As Obama begins his Presidential campaign he references Katrina as a part of his stump speech as he travels around the country in his familiar line, “That we are not a country which preaches compassion and justice to others while we allow bodies to float down the streets of a major American city. That is not who we are.” June 20, 2007: Obama co-sponsors Gulf Coast Housing Recovery Act of 2007 introduced by Senator Chris Dodd. July 27, 2007: Obama and colleagues get a measure in the Homeland Security bill that will investigate FEMA trailers that may contain the toxic chemical, formaldehyde. Aug. 26, 2007: Obama outlines a detailed Hurricane Katrina recovery plan. December 18, 2007: Obama calls on President Bush to protect affordable housing in New Orleans February 16, 2008: Obama releases statement on toxic Gulf Coast trailers

    Is it possible to be progressive and a REALIST at the same time?

    There are not abstract discussions. These are real legislated initiatives to help real people.

    Compared to McCain's record:

    McCain Voted Twice Against Establishing A Commission To Study The Response To Hurricane Katrina. [ 9/14/2005, 2/2/2006] McCain Opposed Granting Financial Relief To Those Affected By Hurricane Katrina. [9/15/2005] McCain Voted Against Five Months of Medicaid For Hurricane Katrina Victims. [11/3/2005] McCain Voted Against Emergency Funding Bill, Including $28 Billion for Hurricane Relief. [5/4/2006]

    What are we to believe - that Obama's years of social outreach and social service to the community was all a clever ruse - and that he is just another neo-conservative in lamb's clothing - simple because we cherry pick his voting record and find several distasteful political positions and votes?

    How do we balance these two faces of Obama?

    We don't.

    We contrast it to the KNOWN policies pro-life, corporatism, evangelical pandering, oil industry cronyism, war mongering and mass murder and contempt for the environment that is the Republican party - and we make a choice to stop them at ALL costs.

    we endorse the stated policies of Barack Obama and make him president.

    that does not mean our work is done - but - at the very least we have taken a big step towards renewing the hope and activism of the masses.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  6. mark
    Member

    Obama's first vote as a Senator was to ratify Bush's theft of the election in Ohio - Jan 2005. There was "one Senator" who supported a real discussion of the fraud in Ohio, but that was Senator Barbara Boxer, not Obama.

    Obama wants more nuclear power, more troops for Afghanistan, to maintain Bush's military budget, to maintain Bush's military bases in Iraq or the illusion of clean coal. He voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act, for FISA immunity.

    Biden's Presidential campaign in 2007 was centered on the idea of having the US dismember Iraq into three new countries - which would allow better control of the oil. Good cop, bad cop.

    Zbigniew Brzezinski for President - dispense with the middleman!

    There are many flavors of distraction and naivete. Heads they win, tails we lose.

    I live in a state where the D's control the voting machinery. Even if the neo-cons manage to steal another election, they won't flip the state I live in since the illusion of democracy is important to maintain, at least for a while longer. I'll be wasting my vote on Cynthia McKinney, but at least I won't regret that a year from now.

    The 2008 "election" is a choice between the Rockefeller Republicans and the neo-cons, between the Council on Foreign Relations (Obama / Biden) and the American Enterprise Institute (McCain), between the old guard of foreign policy and the crazies. We need better choices than that if we are going to be able to use some of the rest of the oil for relocalization, renewable energy and "power down" strategies to mitigate the end of the age of oil. Unfortunately, we are getting the choice of "smarter empire" versus "Fourth Reich," not a choice of "empire" versus "no empire." Worse, it is obvious that the "voters" are not going to determine the outcome via the ballot boxes, touch screen voting machines and ballot scanners - Presidential elections are rigged in advance by elites who are divided about tactics but not about the goal of US global dominance.

    Richard Nixon signed into law the basic laws of the environmental era - because there was a lot of public pressure to act about environmental pollution. Clinton and Gore managed to shred many of these laws because there was not much public pressure (they were supposedly on our side, so most who were concerned did not act). Neither corporate funded political party has much interest in doing anything to slow eco-cide beyond rhetoric, sadly.

    I hope to be proved wrong in my skepticism about Obama if the old guard triumphs over the neo-cons in November. But that would take more pressure from the grassroots than from corporate America - anyone see any evidence of that on the horizon?

    --

    http://www.oilempire.us/biden.html Biden's false solution for Iraq - Partition

    --

    http://www.oilempire.us/new-map.html the Empire's new Middle East map - ethnic cleansing and oil geography

    Posted 16 years ago #
  7. JohnA
    Member

    i can see a lot of legitimate points being made here. for some reason this same debate is a flame-fest on TruthACtion.

    i guess only time will tell.

    but i can tell you one thing: i am proud that americans are embracing an african american in such large numbers. it really does say something about who we are - and how we differ from the republicans.

    maybe Obama is a phony. maybe. but there is nothing phony about the tears of joy of an 80 year old black man who saw both segregated water coolers in the 1960s - and a widely embraced and respected black presidential candidate in 2008.

    at the very least - Obama's success is real on THAT level.

    and the world IS watching!

    Posted 16 years ago #
  8. Arabesque
    Member

    We've seen the last two elections illegally stolen. Since there were no consequences, I have no doubt that we will see a repeat performance. I see no reason why they wouldn't keep up this charade.

    I agree that if McCain were to be President, it would be an unmitigated disaster. It would also be a disaster if Bush used his executive powers in response to a national emergency or "terrorist" attack to continue his rule.

    What has to happen is a grass roots initiative to challenge the status quo.

    My impression is that we are in a lose-lose situation unless there is a direct challenge in the form of a grass roots movement to fascism/corporate based politics.

    I do not believe that any single person can save us. And I don't believe simply supporting a candidate who would make changes is enough. There has to be real pressure or nothing will happen.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  9. truthmod
    Administrator

    I don't think that skepticism of Obama should preclude anyone's recognition that he will probably be a much more just and honest president than Bush or McCain.

    And if we really do think that the last two elections were stolen, there must have been some reasons for the right to steal them, correct?

    Obama is no savior. Usually only the most deluded of establishment democrats really act like he is. We will have no change without a fundamental re-engagement of the populace in their governance. "Faith" in a leader to do it for us is ridiculous.

    I don't think those of us (JohnA and myself) who are acknowledging and appreciating the historic nature of the Obama candidacy are involved in delusional wishful thinking. I'd say that we're being realists.

    Personally, I think that we are on our way towards the disintegration of modern industrial civilization along with the well-underway disintegration of the world environment and resource base. I don't think that Obama will make much difference to this outcome, but I sure as hell will be grateful to have him up there rather than John McCain.

    Sorry, but I see a measure of thoughtfulness in Obama (take his race speech, for example) that makes me quite confident that compared to Bush and McCain, Obama will lead us in a better direction.

    I find it very hard to relate to anyone who literally doesn't care whether Obama or McCain is our next president.

    BTW, I plan to vote for Cynthia McKinney, because Obama should be well ahead in my state. As much as we might want it to be otherwise, democracy (not that we really have one, but even if we did), and politics require serious compromises.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  10. truthmod
    Administrator

    And if any Ron Paul fans want to tell me how Obama is just another Clinton/Bush/McCain, they can go.....

    Ron Paul Convention (Grover Norquist, Barry Goldwater, and Tucker Carlson)
    http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/1219?replies=...

    Posted 16 years ago #
  11. truthmover
    Administrator

    I think we are seeing the effects of overly generalized thinking that goes hand in hand with an overly simple view of who has power and how they use it. Not uncommon in this movement. The whole of our government is not "NWO scum" for example. The idea that there is no measurable difference between Obama and McCain overlooks the reality of different groups competing for control over how our country is governed.

    I certainly understand and acknowledge the fact that Obama and McCain have a lot more in common that the MSM would have us believe. And I think it's unfortunate that Obama has been candy coated as a serious reformer, when his whole schtick is compromising with the conservatives.

    But I think it's dangerous when people stop thinking practically about the Bush Administration's record, how destructive and illegal it was, and come to assume that Gore and Kerry would have been no better. The Bush Administration will go down in history as this nations worst, at least so far, and there are some very big important reasons for that.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  12. mark
    Member

    So vote for Biden and Obama, and then let's impeach them, too, afterwards.

    The 2008 "election" is a choice between the Rockefeller Republicans and the neo-cons, between the Council on Foreign Relations (Biden / Obama) and the American Enterprise Institute (McCain), between the old guard of foreign policy and the crazies. We need better choices than that if we are going to be able to use some of the rest of the oil for relocalization, renewable energy and "power down" strategies to mitigate the end of the age of oil. Unfortunately, we are getting the choice of "smarter empire" versus "Fourth Reich," not a choice of "empire" versus "no empire." Worse, it is obvious that the "voters" are not going to determine the outcome via the ballot boxes, touch screen voting machines and ballot scanners - Presidential elections are rigged in advance by elites who are divided about tactics but not about the goal of US global dominance.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  13. JohnA
    Member

    Mark-

    unless you have a better strategy for transforming the system - these are the choices we have.

    but - i personally do not buy into the 'every candidate is a puppet' type scenario.

    are these men beholden to special interests and political interests? of COURSE they are. unless we hold a random lottery to determine who is president - the very nature of political ascension requires, by definition, political affiliations.

    it appears you want a politician with no political ties?

    that is impossible

    but - what i take issue with is the constant 'guilt by association' exaggerations that i see - in which we are not allowed to believe that any one candidate could possess an independent spirit - and integrity - despite the necessities of political expediency.

    the same is true in any large corporation. the CEO is beholden to stock holders and the board of directors and the public's demand and production costs and labor and environmental concerns, etc etc etc.

    what YOU are suggesting is that the possibility of a CEO charting a brave new course for his corporation - and exercising REAL executive discretion based on a foundation of integrity is impossible.

    i reject this scenario. it completely disregards the HUMAN ELEMENT. it disregards who Obama is as a human being - and what HE hopes and dreams for for America.

    i personally do not know what Obama wants. i hope i am not wrong.

    but i do view it as somewhat politically adolescent to continually insist that Obama is merely a puppet of the vast resources at his disposal - such as political advisors.

    a GOOD executive listens to the advise of those around him - and makes moral judgements and executive decisions. A good president is not owned by his advisers (like Bush). A good president owns his advisers.

    let us hope OBama has a moral compass.

    But please - stop summarily rendering a verdict of GUILTY and talking about impeachment before the man has even demonstrated what his management style is. it is immature.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  14. truthmover
    Administrator

    Unfortunately, we are getting the choice of "smarter empire" versus "Fourth Reich," not a choice of "empire" versus "no empire." Worse, it is obvious that the "voters" are not going to determine the outcome via the ballot boxes, touch screen voting machines and ballot scanners - Presidential elections are rigged in advance by elites who are divided about tactics but not about the goal of US global dominance.

    Mark,

    I appreciate your position on this issue as I agree to a large extent. I agree that those in power or with access to it would not be offering a choice between empire and no empire and that elections have been rigged where possible.

    But I also think John and Truthmod made a valid point about excessive cynicism. I think its rather unproductive to talk about not having a choice when the only choice you would take seriously would be someone who was planning on deconstructing the present system. I want the kind of change you want very much. But that's not the game we are talking about here.

    It seems like a lot of us don't really want to play that game. But as has been pointed out, the cost of not playing the game could be a McCain presidency, and I really do want "smarter empire" instead of the "Fourth Reich." Don't you? I really would rather have the "old guard" instead of the "crazies."

    As I suggested above, there very certainly would have been many important differences between a Gore and the Bush Presidency. Those difference don't have anything to do with dismantling our unsustainable empire. But people consider Bush to be the worst President in our history for some very good reasons.

    I'm voting for McKinney as well as I support her in general, and like Truthmod, I live in a securely blue state where my vote for a third party candidate would not hurt Obama's chances of taking our delegates.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  15. Victronix
    Member

    The whole of our government is not "NWO scum" for example.

    Hilarious.

    I have to agree with Mark. At a certain point you have to stop playing the game.

    To those talking about the relevance of race, as it turns out, here's one better -- the first ever all-women of color presidential ticket is awaiting your vote: McKinney/Clemente.

    I dare you to click on this and just look at it for a second:

    http://www.gp.org/index.php

    Posted 16 years ago #
  16. Victronix
    Member

    Mark, I noticed you don't yet have a McCain or Palin page . . . How about "Drill Baby, Drill!" . . . I thought that would make a perfect news headline to sum up the RNC, but instead the SF Chron wrote: "Palin comes out swinging" as the title! What idiots. Not even a mention of the drill baby chants. And then there was Ghouliani's "Islamic Terrorism" . . .

    Or this gem from Palin (approximate wording): "Al Queda wants to destroy us, and Obama wants to read them their rights."

    Posted 16 years ago #
  17. Victronix
    Member

    I really do want "smarter empire" instead of the "Fourth Reich."

    But eventually the Fourth Reich implodes because it isn't smart. Smarter Empire transforms into Fourth Reich on Steriods overnight while you are sleeping and by the time you wake up, you are already in a pod . . .

    One of these is clearly a disaster, and the world knows it and rejects it.

    The other is a disaster in disguise, so the world doesn't realize they are losing everything with each passing day.

    Either way it is pretty awful.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  18. Victronix
    Member

    Oh I forgot, Mark doesn't watch TV . . .

    September 3, 2008, 10:50 pm Steele Gives GOP Delegates New Cheer: ‘Drill, Baby, Drill!’ An election-year enthusiasm for more oil drilling found its voice at the Republican convention Wednesday, as delegates punctuated a couple of speeches with shouts of “Drill, baby, drill!” http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/03/steele-gi...

    Posted 16 years ago #
  19. Victronix
    Member

    And a big problem is that the Dems are not calling out the religious right either . . .

    The media and the Democrats have tip-toed around the most important political implications of the Palin nomination: the fact that one of America’s two major political parties is effectively controlled by forces that can be best described as theocratic fascists, who see her nomination as a means of imposing their ideology on the country at large.

    While there has been a torrent of media coverage concerning the pregnancy of Palin’s 17-year-old daughter Bristol, very little attention has been paid by the mainstream media to the Alaska governor’s political-religious affiliations.

    While the implications of this toxic mix of religious fundamentalism and right-wing politics are ominous, there is little indication that Palin will be on the receiving end of the kind of frenzy that was unleashed against Barack Obama earlier this year over the statements made by the minister of his own church, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, mixing black nationalist rhetoric with criticisms of US foreign policy.

    Within the Republican Party, none of these revelations has had any discernable impact on the immense popularity of Palin’s nomination among those attending the Minneapolis convention. This is because the party’s “base” is made up to a large extent of the Christian right, which sees in Palin one of their own.

    More importantly, neither Obama nor any section of the Democratic Party leadership has the stomach for making these connections a political issue.

    There are millions upon millions of working people who are fed up with having Christian fundamentalism shoved down their throats by right-wing politicians using religious rhetoric to justify social inequality, wars of aggression, tax cuts for the rich and every other political demand of the financial elite.

    Yet the Democrats have no intention of appealing to these sentiments and challenging the Christian right. Rather, their aim is to compete for votes by adapting to it. This is the real source of the kid-gloves treatment given the Palin nomination."

    As Republicans unveil VP candidate, Democrats silent on threat from religious right By Bill Van Auken 4 September 2008 http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/pali-s04...

    Posted 16 years ago #
  20. truthmod
    Administrator

    But eventually the Fourth Reich implodes because it isn't smart. Smarter Empire transforms into Fourth Reich on Steriods overnight while you are sleeping and by the time you wake up, you are already in a pod . . .

    OK, this is a critical point. Some people do think that things have to get worse before they get better. Some people do think that having 8 years of Bush fascism was good in that it woke up millions to the importance of being politically aware/engaged. I think these are legitimate perspectives that we should consider. Although, they do beg the argument of who really is promoting a "race to the bottom." Ideally we wouldn't have to choose the lesser of two evils (Kerry, Obama) and we could go with someone who really did seem to have our radical interests at heart (McKinney, Kucinich, Nader, etc.).

    Some people think that a McCain presidency (like the 2nd Bush term) will be a wake up call for real, revolutionary change. Others feel that we need to put some brakes (even if they are fairly superficial) on the rise of blatant imperial fascism that's been overtaking our country.

    It's interesting that both sides seem to be arguing a "practical" justification, rather than idealistic one. There's also a big difference between those who say they don't care whether McCain or Obama wins and those who would actually prefer McCain to win for the reasons outlined above.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  21. JohnA
    Member

    i have always been a very vocal critic of several of the creators of the website wtcdemolitions.com - for reasons i will not go into here.

    but - ironically - there is ONE thing that i see on thei website that i do agree with.

    they talk about avoiding the coming holocaust of islamic people.

    i too think this is very possible. The region is a tinderbox - and - it is easy to see how a series of relatively minor events could spiral out of control and create a regional war that would engulf all of the the people in the region. this is my worst nightmare. Israel. Iran. Syria. Iraq. Pakistan. India. Nuclear weapons in the mix. This is no joke.

    If there are those who wish to see things 'get worse' - in order to bring about real change - i hope they realize the human cost of such a scenario.

    and - yes - i am FULLY aware this scenario could unfold in an OBama presidency as well. i know this.

    but - i also know that John McCain is a deeply flawed man who - on a human level - seems far inferior to Obama - intellectually. this - in my opinion - makes him more dangerous.

    ya know - evangelicals ALSO want to see things get worse - so things will get better (in the form of Jesus returning). This is a pretty piss-poor political position to take.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  22. Victronix
    Member

    . Some people do think that things have to get worse before they get better. Some people do think that having 8 years of Bush fascism was good in that it woke up millions to the importance of being politically aware/engaged.

    Not really. Voting for someone you want to vote for, that you respect, does not mean you want Bush in office, it means that you are not going to be controlled by fear, even if everyone else is.

    If we were not voting into black boxes, our world might be a different place right now.

    Who made black boxes happen?

    D & R.

    They will sell us all out in a heartbeat because otherwise they are out of a job.

    The Democrat mayor appoints the unaccountable registrar of voters, who then sells out the city to Diebold. When the unaccountable registrar's term is up, he goes to work for Diebold. Then the Democrat votes go missing, we are stuck with Rethugnican nightmares, and to imagine anything nefarious could have happened is conspiracy nut time.

    No thanks.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  23. mark
    Member

    Obama and Biden have already demonstrated their allegiances, and they are to the elite. But the old guard of the elite, not the neo-cons.

    Of course McCain and Palin are worse (Palin is much much worse) but it's a Good Cop, Bad Cop scenario, not really a real choice of the electorate.

    Those who think it needs to get worse to force change haven't been paying attention over the past decade, when it got much worse (under both Clinton and Bush) and few were willing to notice.

    I'd "vote" for Cynthia McKinney even if the state that I live in was a supposed swing state, but I don't expect that will lead to anything, unfortunately. Heads they win, tails we lose.

    --

    http://www.oilempire.us/obama.html the audacity of false hope

    --

    http://www.oilempire.us.biden.html Biden's false solution for Iraq: partition

    --

    http://www.oilempire.us/mccain.html warmongering advisors

    --

    http://www.oilempire.us/palin.html Vice President Sarah Palin? cementing the illusion of Alaskan oil

    --

    http://davidsirota.com/index.php/mr-obama-goes-to-...

    Mr. Obama Goes to Washington By David Sirota The Nation - 6/7/06

    He seems like everything to everybody, which is not necessarily his fault. Much of the media coverage of Obama has been personality focused, as the story of the son of a Kenyan and a Kansan, the third African-American senator since Reconstruction. Because the media have not looked as closely at his political positions, Obama has taken on the quality of a blank screen on which people can project whatever they like. But he hasn’t discouraged this. A masterful politician, Obama has a Bill Clinton-esque talent for maximizing that screen and appearing comfortable in almost any setting. And, like Clinton, Obama has an impressive control of the issues and a mesmerizing ability to connect with people. ....

    Just as Ned Lamont’s antiwar primary campaign against prowar Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman was gaining momentum, Obama traveled to the state to endorse Lieberman. Like the Duckworth endorsement, Obama’s move was timed to derail an insurgent, grassroots candidate. To progressives this may seem surprising, given Obama’s progressive image. But remember, according to the New York Times it is Lieberman–one of the most conservative, prowar Democrats in Washington–who is “Obama’s mentor in the Senate as part of a program in which freshman senators are paired with incumbents.” ....

    he appears to be interested in fighting only for those changes that fit within the existing boundaries of what’s considered mainstream in Washington, instead of using his platform to redefine those boundaries. This posture comes even as polls consistently show that Washington’s definition of mainstream is divorced from the rest of the country’s (for example, politicians’ refusal to debate the war even as polls show that Americans want the troops home).

    Obama’s deference to these boundaries was hammered home to me when our discussion touched on the late Senator Paul Wellstone. Obama said the progressive champion was “magnificent.” He also gently but dismissively labeled Wellstone as merely a “gadfly,” in a tone laced with contempt for the senator who, for instance, almost single-handedly prevented passage of the bankruptcy bill for years over the objections of both parties. This clarified Obama’s support for the Hamilton Project, an organization formed by Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and other Wall Street Democrats to fight back against growing populist outrage within the party. And I understood why Beltway publications and think tanks have heaped praise on Obama and want him to run for President. It’s because he has shown a rare ability to mix charisma and deference to the establishment.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  24. Victronix
    Member

    Obama voted to protect the wiretappers.

    No person, D,R or anything else, wants to be spied on. Hence, this vote is only to protect a corporate and intelligence agency business, nothing more. There is no "right-wing" vote he is pandering to here. They don't want to be wiretapped either. It is a good example of how good people will ultimately have the rug pulled out from them if they try to do anything to protect average Americans because they have bought into a system that traps them. What would Obama call for if he were not a Democrat? Probably the same things that McKinney is calling for now. But he has chosen to be a Democrat for a reason.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  25. JohnA
    Member

    was it a vote to protect wiretapping - or was it a vote designed to defuse the "Obama is weak on nation defense" attacks that the McCain camp would most likely have employed?

    i think it is clear that Obama is attempting to move to the center, for political reasons. he needs middle america that STILL plays into the hands of the fear mongers - and who can be manipulated into thinking Obama is some weak liberal that wants to surrender.

    Clinton played the same game - cozying up to Rush Limbaugh. its politics my friends.

    now - we could debate whether compromising your ideals by voting for wiretapping - just to recast yourself in an election - is moral and justified. but - lets face it - if he does NOT win the White House wiretapping will not only become the norm - it will probably get even worse.

    Obama - as president - COULD get rid of wiretapping with one stroke of a pen.

    so which is more likely:

    1 - Obama who is considered one of the most liberal senators in congress, who's background is in community organizing and social justice, who has always had a record of championing liberal causes is REALLY running a clever charade - a ruse - and has always been a secret right wing hard-liner waiting for the right moment to seize the white house and empower the power elite?

    or

    2 - Obama knows that politics is, by its nature, an extremely dirty game in which ideologues like Cynthia McKinney and Nader and Kuccinich are IMMEDIATELY marginalized and have no chance of seizing power - so - he is playing the game and taking centrist positions as a means towards an end. He is taking pro-corporate positions as a way towards and end.

    Did you know that when Abraham Lincoln stumped in the south he sounded veeeery pro-slavery? and when he stumped in the North he sounded veeeery abolitionist?

    its politics. you may not like it - but it is how the game is played.

    i personally believe that Obama and his wife have a record that is in sharp contrast to his recent centrist positions. again - we could debate the morals of him voting for wiretapping - as a means towards a political end - but - in my opinion that is what we are seeing here. i do NOT think he ideologically supports wiretapping. i believe he wants to win this election.

    i

    Posted 16 years ago #

Reply »

You must log in to post.