It seems clear to me that Bloomberg's class interests (if I may use that quaint phrase) are best served by making sure the Republican wins. He can best do that by running as an Independent, and by telling Progressives what they want to hear. Progressives are easily duped by such maneuvers. They think they're hip, but hip they ain't.
More than that. It is clear from the commentary that the Democratic party is still the party that all Americans -- including and especially the Progressives -- love to hate.
WHY does Buzzflash insist on supporting the status quo while claiming to be 'progressive'? We don't have a two-party SYSTEM in the US! We have two different names for the SAME party - WHICH merely TRADES POWER EVERY 4-8 YEARS
In the past ten years, our congress, including dems and repubs alike, has rolled over and stuck their collective rumps in the air like cowardly primates with low testosterone levels confronted with a big, hairy, bully ape. They have collectively collaborated with, unquestionably, the most criminal white house regime in history in order to accomplish our country's destruction economically, environmentally, politically and socially.
The ONLY ticket that I might accept is:
Gore-Nader
My preference is:
Nader and anyone he likes
Hope we can get a super progressive ticket--Nader and Sheehan; Bill Moyers; our own movie star--Warren Beatty, George Clooney. Let's think outside of the box.Of course, that kind of thinking comes right out of a very familiar box, a box labeled "progressive purity." I've said it before and I'll say it again: I've been watching the "progressive purists" -- a.k.a. the peepees -- at work for decades. THEY HAVE NEVER ACCOMPLISHED A SINGLE WORTHWHILE THING. On a practical level, all they ever do is alienate independents and throw elections to the rightists.
I've heard the mantra "the two parties are the same" repeated ad nauseam ever since I was a kid. You'd think that any comparison of the Bush years to the Clinton years would have demolished that notion.
6 comments:
The big problem is the amount money required to become President.
When you need to raise hundred of millions from corporations and rich people, you can be assured that your presidency will be under "influence". The only difference between Republican and Democrat is the source of that money.
Public financing of elections is the only viable solution.
You can't be serious about so-called Progressives accomplishing nothing, but I know what you mean: they didn't change the world fast enough. But they took up Nader's 1970s entreaties to organize locally and to lobby for laws and regulations that would benefit the ordinary citizen, especially regarding health, safety, nutrition, and the environment. Remember when Nader showed that a typical kid's cereal box was more nutritious than the 'cereal' inside?
Here's my take on Perot's entering and then re-entering the 1992 campaign:
1. You must recall Ronnie Dugger's investigatinve piece from 1998 (The New Yorker) in which he revealed the actual and potential scandals of electronic voting machines: http://www.newsgarden.org/columns/dugger.shtml
2. Ross Perot made his billions through computer software billing patents (used for medical insurance billing)
3. Perot maybe (probably? definitely?) understood the potential for mischief inherent in electronic voting
4. Such mischief can only succeed if there are only two high-profile candidates, i.e., a binary choice that enables vote-switching through code manipulation
5. A 'viable' 3rd-party candidate prevents such vote-switching
6. #5 helps to explain why Nader was prevented from becoming a viable candidate in 2000
7. There's book-length more -- including the 'messages' to Perot to quit his 1992 campaign, which he did briefly
-- AitchD as 'Anonymous'
Aitch, I wasn't talking about Nader as consumer advocate, and I wasn't talking about Progressives -- I was talking about Progressive PURISTS.
I'm talking about the jackasses who insist that there is no difference between the parties. I'm talking about the fools who think the Democrats would be more popular if they were further to the left. I'm talking about Chomsky's diatribes against Main Enemy JFK and Alexander Cockburn's diatribes against Main Enemy Bill Clinton. I'm talking about the fools who refuse to forgive or countenance any Democratic politician who compromises.
I'm talking about little snots who say "I will only support a politician if I agree with 100%. 90% isn't good enough. If I don't get that extra ten percent, then I say let the Republicans run everything."
God, I cannot STAND people like that! The harm they have done to this country is incalculable.
We live in a country that is 1. filled with people who are basically conservative -- nearly fascist, in fact -- and 2. filled with uneducated, superstitious apes in human clothing. With such a bozo-ized populace, compromise is the name of the game, baby. All progress is incremental at best and political virtue is necessarily comparative, as in "At least A is better than B."
Your comments about Perot and Nader are asinine. If Perot had any concerns about electronic voting, he would have voiced them. I mean, why the hell not? You simply have zero evidence for your presumption. The way people think now is not the way they were thinking aback in '92. How old were you then, kid?
Nader was "prevented" from becoming a viable candidate because PEOPLE DON'T LIKE HIM. Do you really believe that the average citizen wants him? My god, this is a country where millions of people think Hillary is a commie!
I cannot believe that my blog attracts Naderites! Jeez, I'd be thrilled to have half the readership, as long as it were the brighter half.
Joseph, my friend, I'm 63. I could ask you why no major candidate has "voiced" "any concerns" about the jimmying of voting machines -- a mere few have used non-threatening euphemisms. My only point was that Perot prevented Poppy from stealing the 1992 election. I don't blog, I don't have to present incontrovertible evidence.
Who (he asks rhetorically) prevented Nader from participating in the 2000 televised debates? I mean, which of the "PEOPLE [who] DON'T LIKE HIM"? Didn't you hear his recent interview with Amy Goodman, his explanation of how the "two" parties elbowed out the League of Women Voters, who used to run those 'debates'?
I also think the "a-vote-for-Nader-is-a-vote-for-Bush" trick came out of Karl Rove's brain. You want proof? Subpoena his emails from 2000!
It's stupid to argue on the Internet.
-- AitchD as 'Anonymous'
I came up with the following joke:
"What's the difference between Republicans and Democrats?"
"The Republicans will poke little boys because they think it's the right thing to do. Democrats poke little boys because they think it will get them elected."
This humor reflects my impression that the democrats know enough about poking little boys to say it's wrong, but they are so driven by the need for success that they will do it anyway if they thought it would get them elected.
That is, I can't trust them because they talk the talk but too many times they don't walk the walk.
Hence, I will vote for Fidel Castro, even if he's dead at the time of the election, because it's up to them to give me a candidate that I want to vote for. It's not up to me to compromise myself so much that I'd settle voting for their "lesser evil" schmuks.
I could vote for Nader because he has a good record, he's always been there fighting for things I've approved of, and he still has courage. I will not vote for many of the dems now out there because they do not measure up.
Post a Comment