AlterNet / By Jan Frel
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 200

Why Are Gore and Kerry Polling Worse Than Bush?

The big names in the Democratic Party have even lower numbers than Bush -- is that because everyone's ignoring the crisis in our politics?
May 19, 2006  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 
Be pragmatic. Take a good, long look at reality, and recognize that even though there isn't a Democrat in Washington who will admit that our political system is profoundly sick and obsolete, in the real world, the Democratic Party is currently all we have. So support it anyway.

That's what I've been telling myself, but boy can it be hard to swallow. Take, for example, the sea of problems Hillary Clinton poses to any political idealist. Hillary Clinton may represent many awful things -- Iraq, corporatism, insane military spending -- but the truth is, millions of Americans may well have health care if she becomes president, and they won't if she loses to a Republican in the next election.

I know it's good when Jack Abramoff sinks six congressmen and a senator; I know it's good when Bush's ratings hover in the 30s. I choke down my speeches about how both of these things are symptomatic of systemic problems and not due to the virtue of elected Democrats. And I am intrigued and hopeful at the prospect of Al Gore running for president, even though I think it's bizarre to engage in the dominant political language surrounding presidential contests -- where the every little move of one human being is treated as representative of the political desires of 300 million. Still, that's all there is. So I'm going with it.

This kind of "pragmatism" isn't any easier when the wider public thinks there's something deeply wrong as well. They clearly aren't buying "John Kerry" or "Al Gore" at this point. A recent New York Times poll has both of them ranking below the worst president in history. Kerry is at 26 percent, and former vice president and presidential candidate Gore is at 28 percent. George W. Bush is pulling in at 31 percent.

There are a lot of numbers in the recent poll that would normally give me cause for joy -- the public hates everything about Bush. Only 13 percent think he's done a good job addressing rising gas prices. Twenty-nine percent are still favorably shocked and awed by his performance on Iraq. The surface-level political analysis making the progressive rounds on Bush's bad poll numbers is that they will automatically translate into success for Democrats: takeovers in Congress in 2006, etc.

But if that were the case, it would be fair to expect that a guy like Al Gore would look like the shiniest red apple in the basket. But to repeat, the same poll has Gore polling below George Bush. The Times called Gore one of "Bush's more vocal critics." What does that mean? Let's be pragmatic.

For starters, it means that Al Gore and John Kerry are big losers in the public eye; they weren't the guys at the inauguration. Even though the results of the 2000 and 2004 elections have been contested and remain in dispute, the truth is that neither Gore nor Kerry ever commanded any kind of massive public support for their positions.

If they had, Kerry wouldn't be still grumbling about those 60,000 votes that he needed in Ohio. But this poll that has Gore and Kerry well below Bush is about more than their being losers. If that were true, we might expect to see an untested national-name Democrat, like say, Hillary Clinton, polling at a higher level -- at least in the 40s. But only 31 percent of Americans say they will definitely vote for her, according to the most recent Rassmussen poll.

These bipartisan absurdly low numbers for our national politicians mean to me that there's something more profound going on in American society than our national politicians are willing to fess up to. I think it's something very close to what writer Matt Taibbi once explained about why he wanted to pack the 10 Democrats vying for the Democratic nomination in the 2004 election "into a missile and shoot them into space":
Here we are, in a world that is completely and utterly insane -- where giant fast-food companies spend fortunes researching the responses of three- and four-year-olds in order to exploit them, where billions of dollars are pissed away every day on shitty movies like "Finding Nemo" while schools are going down to the four-day week, and where the average New Yorker sees three or four thousand ads a day, most of which tell him he's fat and impotent, and a Nissan is a better buy than his wife -- and these candidates are up there tinkering, talking about a balanced budget and repealing tax cuts. There isn't a [candidate] among them who even hints at anything like horror before our fatuous, commercial lives.
The Democrats … don't want to be anything other than better caretakers for that museum of human history. They don't try to imagine a fundamentally better world, because they actually believe that there isn't one. They're buffoons straight out of Voltaire, running on a platform of "Our mild improvements to this best of all possible worlds."
The bigger point is that it seems like the political language that will put a president or presidential candidate way above the magic 50 percent has to channel something deeper than the tinkering BS you hear out of Mark Warner or Bill Frist's mouth. Even the queen of political pangloss, former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan, has been willing to admit to a more fundamental sickness in our politics. In an essay she penned last October, she conceded the sense that "we're at the end of something":
I think there is an unspoken subtext in our national political culture right now … a sense that the wheels are coming off the trolley and the trolley off the tracks. … It's beyond, 'The president is overwhelmed.' The presidency is overwhelmed.
In my case, I'd like to see just one establishment politician in Washington to come out of the closet and say it: that our political system hasn't changed since the 18th century; that the lower house of Congress has 435 people "representing" 300 million citizens, in some cases thousands of miles away from their constituents; that the Constitution is outdated, obsolete, virtually unmodified -- but that's just what I want to hear.

All this said, I still want to be pragmatic. And remember, I expect to remain a Democratic Party cheerleader. I know it will be good if there's a Democratic House majority decided on the eve of this Nov. 2, even if it's clear they don't have the capacity to do more than whisper in the graveyard. Because even a President Hillary Clinton still could mean health care -- for millions who don't have it.
  • 1
View as a single page
 
Jan Frel is an AlterNet staff writer.
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email

comments COMMENTS ( 200 )
READ COMMENTS
LOGIN OR REGISTER TO POST A COMMENT
 

Comments are closed-

its tough
[Report this comment]
Posted by: evanrick on May 19, 2006 12:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its hard to step back to try and understand a partys political problems and its impact on America when you support it so much.
I think democrats do have an identiy crisis, but thats OK because they do try and represent everyone instead of catering to the wealthy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: its tough Posted by: Louisa
» RE: its tough Posted by: DoctorAndy
» Are you nuts? Or just sleeping? Posted by: Steven Wanzell

Comments are closed-

Could it be the MSM???
[Report this comment]
Posted by: HawkSpirit on May 19, 2006 2:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every damn news program or newspaper article states the Democrats do not have a backbone. How in the hell can you standup, if you do not get to go the secret meetings where hidden bills are written by their republican conterparts? Reporters and citizens are still being investigated, discenters are still being attacked by the Rove machine and/or even thrown into jail for protesting the war. There is no one MSM out there even giving them a chance and that goes for some progressive media too. It is so damn easy to sit at our computers and bitch about the Democrats, but just what you could do in their place? Things just do not make it TV or the press, like Russ Feingold walking out in protest yesterday. I am so tired of hearing this s--t and I start to tune out and even want to just give up. I know we cannot do that. This election is really it and if we fail good bye the land of the free and we the people for ever!!!!

Then too, everyone is focused on the Nov o6 elections and there is no point right now to get geared up for 08. I only have so much money to give to help elect a congress that might investigate this gang of criminals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Could it be the MSM??? Posted by: American Reflections

Comments are closed-

They Were Losers
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ChristopherLL on May 19, 2006 3:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no doubt that the Democratic Party has the opportunity and organization to counter the Republican Party's politics based on power, wealth, militarism and religious dogma but Clinton, Gore and Kerry had their chance and can only be seen as losers. Hillary had her chance to change healthcare and failed, miserably, mostly becasue of her own sene of omnipotence and obvious ignorance of the whole issue of what is behind healthcare in this country. It is a business and makes money and those who control this industry are not about to lose their golden egg. Gore lost and is gone, Kerry lost and is gone. Going back in time and resurrecting losers is not the answer. What is needed is a vocal and comitted leader who actually listens to what those in this country are saying and offers real solutions, not rhetoric. Most people know the difference and that our problems cannot be solved overnight or with one momentous act. It is a new direction that is important. And that direction is simply to start taking care of those Americans who make this country work. It was not the generals or privates who returned from WWII to build this country rather the junior officers and NCO's (like my father) who learned how to get the job done and raise a family. So I am not concerned with the leaders or those who need to be told what to do but with those who are the foundation of this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: They Were Losers Posted by: hoscot
» RE: They Were Losers Posted by: douglashoyt
» Hillary and Healthcare Posted by: blueneck
» They ARE Losers Posted by: Anyse

Comments are closed-

PULEEZE!!!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: brendastarr on May 19, 2006 4:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wake up!

The two party system is a delusion; and Hillary is a hawk.

The way things are now, neither side has a candidate with vision and "without vision the people perish."

Wake up to the fact that America has become the empire of the world and until we WAKE UP to the fact that we must share and care for this planet, the democrats will not/cannot save us.

We must save ourselves!!!

RISE UP/INTIFADA and grab your liberties or you will not have them.

WE THE PEOPLE are the government only if we are vigilent, speak out and hold all leaders accountable.

DO SOMETHING or nothing will change.
1,200 patriotic passionate spiritual progressives are doing something NOW in DC:
www.tikkun.org


Catch up on the birth of the social and spiritual movement in
Chapter 2: The Revolution has started now...
http://www.wearewideawake.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Bipolar America
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bulbman on May 19, 2006 4:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Much as it almost makes me choke to say so, I think Peggy Noonan is on to something. Americans are steeped in the twin mantras of "get-it-while-you-can" and "do-it-if-it-feels-good" as delivered by the commercial media, which conflicts with the strong streak of puritanism that runs like an underground stream in our collective subsconscious. We want it all, but feel guilty about it at the same time. In sum, the effect is that our culture is bipolar. I think that most Americans, whether right or left-leaning, view themselves as centrists. "Don't rock the boat" even if the boat is leaking. While we dislike politicians whose incompetance and superficial messianic willfulness courts national and international disaster, we loathe those that 1) suggest we change our ways and 2) lose elections. The "comeback kid" Bill Clinton succeeded in bouncing back after defeat because of his uncanny way of connecting with people (or seeming to) and his pragmatic - and decidedly centrist - approach to policy. While the majority of my fellow citizens collectively sense that change is needed in some amorphous way, they revolt at the suggestion that they individually must change their ways. I do not believe that centrist politics really provide any solution to the profound problems that are society is facing. Sadly, I don't see anyway out of this without some galvanizing situation akin to the Depression.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bipolar America Posted by: COC

Comments are closed-

The 'Party System' is a sham
[Report this comment]
Posted by: inanaturallight on May 19, 2006 4:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I expect I will be somewhat of a cheerleader for the Democrats also, although I dread the thought of Hillary as President, she's done nothing for me or the US as my senator. I think the problem we have is not the Constitution- it could use some adjustments but all in all it's a pretty good plan- but rather this 'two-party system' that the politicians cooked up long ago to scam us all. It reflects some idea that things are either going to be black or white, one or the other, and disguises the fact that successful politicians become that way by pandering to the money that gets them elected. Those that stay just one side or the other of some magical line, defined by the rich and the rich corporations, are rewarded with success, and those that actually perceive, care, and act on their beliefs are ignored or sidelined- how many of the Democrats have actually gotten behind Feingold when he stood up for what is right? If people like him were the norm of the Democratic party I could have some faith, but most Democrats are just less conservative Republicans wearing donkey pins.
If we tossed this 'two-party' BS, and had politicians that stood alone on what they believed without some corporate financed machine propping them up as a group and pretending this group was better than that group, then maybe we could figure out which one was the best of the two or five running for a particular office and overall have representation that actually represented their constituents, not their party and the financial structure supporting it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Growing sophistication of public re: MSM political manipulations? Time for a NEW Harvest King!!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: cry0fan on May 19, 2006 4:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are in essence referring to the extemely low poll numbers for the president AND congress.

Now, the poll numbers are quite low, historically low. And it is not just the war. I suspect there are several factors.
First, more and more of the general public are become more and more sophisticated with respect to seeing how the mass media, esp. TV news manipulates us in various ways when it comes to politically sensitive areas such as the war, taxes, immigration, the internet, etc. I have worked in network TV, albeit briefly, and it took me several years to figure out what was going on. But growing numbers of Americans are starting to figure it out. THis may be why the polls numbers are getting lower. First, the media had to sell us on Iraq, and they managed to do that. Then we were all exposed to their machinations during the 2004 campaign, and they sold us on the idea that Bush and Kerry were radically different.

Now they are selling us on the idea that mass immigration is good, and that we are evil if we try to stop it. And so forth.

And of course there is the ongoing selling of "free" trade.

I think this immigration selling campaign may have made some of America more aware of media manipulation. Here in Houston, the local news media is selling hard, and it is pretty obvious. Now, I am more sophisticated in the ways of media persuasion, but I think a certain percentage of Americans are starting to catch on.

Also, various subversive knowledge is starting to leak into the populace via the internet. Young people are QUITE adept at internet usage. They are all over it. And the internet has a lot of info about media propaganda, about how all these American wars are started the same way, and we have a few "radical middle" people like me on the Net throwing a monkey wrench into the whole deal.

These subversive perspectives may be starting to leak into some of the populace.
Also via the Net, more and more Americans are starting to have a growing awareness of European healthcare and social welfare state, etc., which causes some of them to look at our political debate and ask "WTF is going on here!?"

Now the politicians and the mass media and the neoliberal think tanks and business lobbies (a conglomeration I call CorpGovMedia) are well aware of this polling trend. So what they are doing is sacrificing Bush. THey are giving him up and setting the stage for a Dem president and Congress. Of course THEY will do the choosing of who will be in the game to win.

THis technique takes advantage of the old IndoEuropean redemptive-sacrificial man-god tradition, wherein the harvest king from last year is symbolically (or otherwise) sacrificed, and all the evil and bad goes with him (Mithra, Osiris, Jesus, etc). And the new Harvest King reigns and the spirit of the tribe is renewed.

The media is symbolically killing off the old harvest King (Bush) and thus purging the old, making way for a fresh, new, CorpGovMedia, neoliberal rebirth, and thus manipulating us into belleving in the system once more. It is an age old ritual -- "Eat of his body," etc etc etc. Well, via the media destruction of him, we are about to eat Bush.

Once the path is clear for the NEW, Democratic "Harvest King," CorpGovMedia can use race guilt propaganda to manufacture consent for more mass immigration and for a brand spanking new war built around the supposed genocide in Darfur.

Same as it ever was....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

America is too conservative- Red State liberals please comment!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: medstudgeek on May 19, 2006 4:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just between lefties, that is the honest truth. America is a country far to the right of Europe for various historical reasons and we cannot expect the kind of success the Euros have. Sorry. There are a lot of good people in this country, but there were a lot of good people in Taliban-controlled Afghanista too.

Sure Fox News is a blight on humanity, but we never ask ourselves: why did it become popular? The MSM launches thousands of products that fail. It succeeded because, even though the MSM is fiscally conservative (i.e. a pro-corporate sycophant), it's socially liberal (supports tolerance for gays and lesbians), and people find themselves to the right of the MSM. those people found Fox News much to their liking. There is a vast benighted swath of land in the middle of the country that we have to win over somehow. Hillary as a Northeasterner couldn't do it; we need a red-stater. (I know she was from Arkansas but everyone sees her as a northerner now.) We also need someone with charisma. I'd rather go drinking with Al Gore than Bush any time of day but none of the electorate agrees with me, and they vote for people they like personally. Edwards is our best choice, though he's not perfect.

Unfortunately, we're seen as too weak on national security, so Hillary's warmongering might not be such a bad idea electorally speaking. Don't think I support the war; I don't. But don't fool yourselves into thinking the right-wing MSM has deceived a naturally good nation of lefties into voting for idiots. The MSM is a bunch of corporate lapdogs, but the country is far too right-wing anyway.

Out of pure curiosity, would any residents of red states care to comment? And I don't mean you lucky guys in Austin telling Bush jokes with Molly Ivins all day long, I mean
the guys and gals deep in enemy territory.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I also wondered about that.... Posted by: fool-on-the-hill
» Straight party loyalty, I think. Posted by: medstudgeek
» Yup, that's it. Posted by: medstudgeek

Comments are closed-

we need someone
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rsaxto on May 19, 2006 5:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need someone to tell the whole truth to us about all the criminal Republicans and criminal CEOs and Republican lite so-called Democrats like Gore, Kerry and Hillary and about the exceedingly deadly proposed war of the USA against much of the rest of the world. Only the crazy Bushies want stupid Armageddon so all the rest of us need to gang up on the Bushies and totally get them out of office and replaced with real patriots, real Democrats, real survivalists and real environmentalists. The real future can be very good but only if all the criminals are flushed out of the government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: we need a radicaal change Posted by: Lincoln fan
» Gore-shmore Posted by: YogiBear

Comments are closed-

The answer isn't an old cliche
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Lincoln fan on May 19, 2006 5:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author is perfectly aware that the ship is sinking and then recommends rearranging the deck chairs. Our big problem is that both parties represent the corporate establishment. Neither party represents the people. Voting for the lesser evil will only perpetuate evil. The only way that we can break the control of both parties by the establishment is to take control ourselves.

There are four ways to do this:
First: Reform campaign financing and lobbying laws. This has been tried many times and failed.
Second: Organize a third party that represents us. This has been tried many times and failed.
Third: An armed revolt. This would be insane.
Fourth: Use the tried and often successful tactics of labor unions. That is to make your demands to management and threaten to not play their game. If the union is strong enough they win.

We can dictate the platforms of both parties before the election. We can force them both to represent us. To make "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" a reality, click on A new idea

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The answer isn't an old cliche Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: The answer isn't an old cliche Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: The answer isn't an old cliche Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: The answer isn't an old cliche Posted by: Lincoln fan
» A very good point. Posted by: Lincoln fan

Comments are closed-

Gore and Kerry didn't fight back when they had the chance in 2000 and 2004 respectively.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: NDnative on May 19, 2006 6:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To be doing it after they lost would be too little too late. That is the lingering pissed off anger in the minds of voters that keeps these fellows down low in the "polls".

Also, Gore did not run in 2004 when he had the perfect opportunity to fight to take back what was stolen from him. Whether or not he runs in 2008, the damage done to this country will have been beyond even a remote chance of repair.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Amen!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: riley on May 19, 2006 6:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The two-party system and the lobbying empire built in Washington need to go.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Amen! Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Amen! Posted by: kryptx
» RE: Amen! Posted by: harrysf

Comments are closed-

The problem is that they don't look like winners
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bookwoman on May 19, 2006 6:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Al Gore inherited the right to run for President by serving as VP for eight years. That should not be the only thing on which to base a candidate. He was an unfortunate choice. John Kerry also was an unfortunate choice. He was chosen by coming out on top in the Chinese Fire Drill of eight or nine candidates which was the Democratic primary races. Even the Senior Senator from his own home state was reticent in his enthusiasm I think the Dems should have listened because Ted Kennedy's political instincts are very well honed.

Neither one of these men was a good choice to run against George Bush. I'm not saying "W" was a good choice, but he was made to look good by the image weavers in his party. Add to that the spin that he could protect us from anything (Mother Nature took care of that fantasy), and the election in 2004 was a done deal.

I don't think Hillary can win the Presidency, and I think the Dems would be mistaken to choose her. She is not Bill, who for all his personal peccadillos, (if they are any of our business), was a great President.

I think the Democrats had a winning candidate in 2004 except they put him in second place behind Kerry. I think they should take another look at John Edwards. The real wage rate in this country has fallen like a rock in spite of what we are told is a burgeoning economy. Edward's grasp of the pain in the lives of the average American could make him a winner.

I hope the Democrats don't make the same mistake in 2008 which they did in 2000 and 2004.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Trouble with the Democrats Is . . .
[Report this comment]
Posted by: cellis56 on May 19, 2006 6:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . there aren't any.

They stand for nothing. Nancy Pelosi's out there PROMISING not to impeach Bush.

For Christ's sakes, impeachment is a trial and she's promising not to try a man about whom the most conservative person, if he/she's honest, must say, well, there are sure some questions about the legality of what was done. And who is Nancy Pelosi to determne whether justice will be served in the name of millions of Americans who didn't vote for her and to whom she won't respond when they complain (Are you a voting member of my district??).

Pelosi and Barbara Lee are opposing anti-war Congressional candidates in order to consolidate votes behind pro-war Democrats. They imagine the rest of us care what happens to their Party. Precisely because of this lack of vision and focus, the Democratic Party is already dead. Only the dying spasms of the Republican Party can make them appear slightly less moribund.

When black Floridians were deprived of the vote in the previous "election," Kerry didn't stand up. Gore didn't stand up. Nobody spoke for the disenfranchised because nobody in politics speaks for anybody who isn't rich and powerful. These SOBs are nothing but fat cats adopting a few lame slogans that might fly in poorer neighborhoods.

Barbara Lee no longer speaks for me and neither do any of her co-conspirators. Damn them all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

I think the real point here
[Report this comment]
Posted by: sls1982 on May 19, 2006 6:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is that government has streched way beyone having a realistic understanding of American society. I believe that most Americans are extermely tired of hearing the same old rhetoric that does not apply to their lives. Its a matter of understanding your constituents and i hate to say it but both parties are completely out of touch and we know it and we're sick of it. We need a new type of grassroots leadership that understands American society and struggle; not a politician who is more concerned with keeping their job and making money. its that simple.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I agree except--- Posted by: Lincoln fan

Comments are closed-

Someone mention the Depression-PAUL KRUGMAN in NYT say its is coming soon
[Report this comment]
Posted by: HawkSpirit on May 19, 2006 6:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am sorry NTY makes people pay to read Paul Krugman. His article "Coming Down to Earth" points out our reality of our great American debt going to hit like now or very soon from now. We will not long be able to borrow for other countries and we will not be able to afford to import cheap goods paid for selling and/or refinancing our houses that also will lose their value. Maybe those small mom and pop business will have to come back and as well manufacturing jobs, if we cannot afford to import goods and export jobs anymore. All we need now is public financed elections and then maybe we can once again be the land of the free and the brave.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Reading Krugman Posted by: bettsoff

Comments are closed-

ah, what the hey
[Report this comment]
Posted by: karyse on May 19, 2006 6:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think Gore or Kerry can win, I won't vote for Hllary, and I, like many Americans have decided that voting is nothing but a legitimation exercise for the powers that be. I've been wracking my brain for a cadidate that can galvanize people.

Is there any reason Bill Clinton can't run again? At least that would be fun.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ah, what the hey Posted by: cellis56
» RE: ah, what the hey Posted by: Jeanne
» RE: ah, what the hey Posted by: Ellie1

Comments are closed-

Pragmatism vs. protest
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bettsoff on May 19, 2006 6:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not going to support a party that has its hands in my pockets, its mouth on the dick of corporations, and its head up its ass. I will, however, support candidates that I think do none of those things. Perhaps if everyone did the same down to the lowest levels, the Dems would become a party we'd enjoy supporting instead of the lesser of two evils that we bitch about.

Is Hillary getting my vote? HELL fuck no.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pragmatism vs. protest Posted by: LeslieGem
» Amen! Posted by: Lincoln fan

Comments are closed-

What's the definition of insanity?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: LeslieGem on May 19, 2006 6:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh yeah -- doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.

The attitude expressed in this article is what got us here in the first place. Why on earth would I support a political party and their candidates if I either don't agree with their positions or have been disappointed with their performance? I cringe to say this, but I have to hand it to "Dr." James Dobson -- what does he say to the people he elected who are now disappointing him? He treatens then on national T.V.!! What do we do -- "oh well, maybe next time it will work out better, let's give it a little more time, what other choice do we have..." Come on!!!!!! And we wonder why they're winning?!!?!

I'm putting my energy into the numerous 3rd parties who aren't afraid to call a spade a spade and actually have an agenda that I agree with. You know, this country didn't start out with these two parties -- whatever happened to the Whigs, etc.? They died from lack of support and competition from upstarts. That's the American way, isn't it? ; ) Let's unleash that power again and actually get something done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A vote for Honest Abe Posted by: Lincoln fan

Comments are closed-

New big names
[Report this comment]
Posted by: beetruetoyou on May 19, 2006 7:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Move over old big names in the Democratic party and make room for some new big names....John Warner (my exgovernor with the highest rating of any VA governor ever and won in a VERY RED state) and Barak...but only if Molly or Oprah don't run.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: New big names Posted by: jnelson4765

Comments are closed-

THE END IS NEAR
[Report this comment]
Posted by: zoza on May 19, 2006 7:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This big bumbling oaf of a country is ambling it's way toward the precipice. There is no stopping it, so hunker down. That is the only solution for the somnabulistic Americans who sleep, or are more interested in who's going to take the American Idol prize, than whether or not their children can speak English.

A cataclysm of biblical proportion is the only remedy for awakening because the status quo has become so imbedded. We have an idiot for president and even more idiotic fools as his opposition. We have a public so stupid that they voted him in and think that god is the tooth fairy. We have a press that is only interested in the financial bottom line. We have a planet that is sick. This is indeed a ship of fools with a confederacy of dunces for a crew that has been idling away in the horse latitudes while some few of us are praying for a breeze and not even getting a whisper.

Hillary? Kerry? Gore? Polosi? Please! The wheels are coming off... and believe me, a Noonan fan I ain't. I am afraid that we are in too deep on both sides to be able to resolve this catastrophe with common sense. It will take a common disaster to slap us into our senses.

So save your breath and dig in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Attitude of a big-time loser Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Attitude of a big-time loser Posted by: Lincoln fan

Comments are closed-

You Are The Problem
[Report this comment]
Posted by: NoPCZone on May 19, 2006 7:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Be pragmatic. Take a good, long look at reality, and recognize that even though there isn't a Democrat in Washington who will admit that our political system is profoundly sick and obsolete, in the real world, the Democratic Party is currently all we have. So support it anyway..

That's like MLK saying that Jim Crow is a lamentable and cruel institution, but it's all we have. Like Ghandi saying the British are all we have. Like Havel & Walesa saying that the Soviets are all we have.

The same game is being played in the G.O.P. on it's base. Different issues, but with the same motivation and result. They give you lip service and then go on selling you out to their paymasters. As long as we stay trapped in this two party system things will not change in the aggregate. Elect a few Greens or Libertarians to Congress and see what happens in 2008.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You Are The Problem Posted by: Jan Frel
» RE: You Are The Problem Posted by: NoPCZone
» Pathetic Posted by: AlanSmithee
» RE: Pathetic Posted by: kryptx
» RE: Pathetic Posted by: ccbite
» RE: YOU Are The Problem Posted by: CounterCorp

Comments are closed-

Its the corporations stupid!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: gramps on May 19, 2006 7:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They own our culture, our politicians, our media, our military, and they have their greasy fingers in our brain. They are sociopathic robots with but one prime directive, the bottom line. Nobody owns them because they were made that way to seperate liability from ownership. Everyone in a corporation is an employee and the CEO is an employee hired to take the rap for any criminal activity.

While lobbying is a right of human beings, foreign governments and corporations should never be allowed to influence our government. Foreign countries have ambassadors and corporations can write letters. Corporations own the patents and are even patenting our genes. There is nothing wrong with the Democratic Party except that it too has been bought and paid for by the corporations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

The "Wheels Have Come Off" Because
[Report this comment]
Posted by: malcolmartin on May 19, 2006 7:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Much like Charles Darwin’s immutable truths regarding of the origins and evolution of life, Karl Marx guided us through the reasons capitalism was born, why it would thrive and dominate for a time, and how its inherent contradictions condemn it to be replaced by a superior economic system. Problem is capitalism in its last throes, irrational and increasingly insane, is now armed with doomsday weapons and has created an immune system for itself. It influences culture and controls the mass media and education across a growing part of the world, places its servants in seats of political and military power, and creates philosophy and myth to glorify its own existence.

In the years ahead capitalism will take increasing advantage of war, disaster, disease, terror, and slavery to feed itself. It will seek to establish fascist regimes in the United States and other countries where bourgeois democracies have begun to hinder profits. Wholesale destruction and regime change will be visited on the oil producing states like Iraq, Iran and Venezuela. Millions will die when the United States, China, and the European Union fight the wars for control of world markets and access to resources.

Really only one question remains. Will humanity and the planet Earth survive the end of capitalism? To a great degree, our self-preservation depends on the building of an effective class-conscious resistance here at home, in the belly of the beast. What is to be done?

First, people who know better must stop deluding the American people. There will be no more real elections in this country. The mass media and the electoral machinery and both major political parties are now fully under the control of capital. Observe the impotent and clownish Democratic Party and one conclusion is unavoidable: elections that matter are a quaint feature of America’s past. A coup brought George Bush to power in 2000 and he was reinstalled in 2004 and as long as he remains a useful idiot of the ruling clique his public approval rating could drop to zero and he will still reside in the White House. At the same time Bush is expendable in the blink of an eye if he becomes a drag on profits. He would be replaced with another everyman, a new actor and a person better able to read the script and parrot the talking points. Political dog-and-pony show aside, capitalism’s minions will only release their grip on us if and when the system is confronted by a united and organized working class in open rebellion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Look, EVERY politician is a whore to the Military-Corporate Offense Complex
[Report this comment]
Posted by: xbj on May 19, 2006 8:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately, that says it all. EVERY POLITICIAN IS A WHORE TO THE MILITARY-CORPORATE-OFFENSE WAR INDUSTRY.

The point is, do you want a whore with at least a social conscience and SOME level of autonomy, or a whore that is a sociopathic psychopath mass-murderer and wannabe Nazi?

Elections have ALWAYS been about choosing the LESSER OF TWO EVILS. And so it ever shall be until someone somehow makes ALL corporate and political contributions from ALL ORGANIZATIONS COMPLETELY ILLEGAL, WITH NO LOOPHOLES, and limits personal political contributions to $1000. PERIOD. Then you'd get good people into politics once again, instead of bastards and the occasional good person who merely transforms into a whore and bastard.

And polls... let me tell you something about polls. There is an entire INDUSTRY built around PRE-SCREENING people willing to be polled and supplying lists of so-called "random" people to whomever pays them.

Anyone can make a poll say anything they want, as long as they ask the "right" people the "right" questions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Leave the Constitution alone
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jverner on May 19, 2006 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's the only thing standing between us and rule by executive fiat. Even now, Bush says the Constitution does not apply to him when he thinks it shouldn't. As for the electoral process, take another look at the Constitution. It does not mandate just two political parties, and remember the Electoral College is really the entity that picks the president.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

How about a new game
[Report this comment]
Posted by: solrev on May 19, 2006 8:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It probably does not matter which poll name you circulate the poll numbers will be low. The people have lost faith in politicians and the political process. Only 50% of the people ever had any faith in it to begin with. Personally, I am not going to waste my time playing “the lesser of two evils” game. This is what I need to hear if you want my participation.

1. We will be oil independent by 2020 is a sham. It is no longer good enough to reduce our pollution. If we let China follow the path we traveled, the planet will be dead by 2020. So, talk to me about producing fusion energy on the moon and providing it to every human being on this planet at low cost. If you like city water, you will love planet earth energy. How soon can you do that?

2. Stop outsourcing and insourcing my job. Make labor costs competitive in the US without destroying my standard of living. I did my part to increase productivity. So, talk to me about taking the health care costs off the back of my employer. Talk to me about universal health care. If you like city water you will love universal health care. How soon can you do that?

3. Stop pushing my grandchildren into debt with your ballooning debt. So, talk to me about being the tax and reduce the debt party. It is not good enough to balance the budget.

Do whatever it takes to accomplish these three goals and I will vote for you. Do it not and I will destroy you. The final solution – revolution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Don't tell us. Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Don't tell us. Posted by: solrev
» RE: Don't tell us. Posted by: Lincoln fan

Comments are closed-

A work-around...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kiatoa on May 19, 2006 9:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Plurality voting is fundamentally broken. It creates a binary system: Republican or Democrat. Any solution must account for this. Given that the chances of reforming the voting system is essentially zero the only option left is to either take over one of the existing parties or to get a massive rallying behind a third party candidate. I created my web site www.kiatoa.com for this very purpose. The idea is an approval voting based poll combined with a mechanism that allows you to differentiate between the votes of people who are willing to think deeply and those who are not. So log in to kiatoa and help choose who we should rally behind. I'm working frantically to finish the site (it is still somewhat rough) but it is usable. If you know of a site where someone is already doing this please post here and let me know. Lets work together to choose who to vote for in the next election!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A work-around... Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: A work-around... Posted by: solrev
» RE: A work-around... Posted by: kiatoa

Comments are closed-

3rd Party is the only sane vote in Nov.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: AlanSmithee on May 19, 2006 10:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Pragmatism" is what got us the craptastic neoliberal '90s.

"Pragmatism" is why the neocons have full spectrum dominance today.

Screw "Pragmatism"

"Pragmatism" isn't the 3rd Way, it's the Coward's Way. "Pragmatistist" are spineless weasels afraid to do the right thing because it's too hard.

Pathetically wishing for tidbits from the corporate single party system is fine for whipped-dog democrats and hopeless party flacks, but the rest of us don't have that fucking luxury. To put it a way that even a mouthbreathing Clinton-toady like Randi Rhodes could understand:

WE CAN'T AFFORD YOU!!!

It's long past time to jettison the Whigs of the New Millennium and start building a new party. Hell, several new parties. DUMP THE DEMS. DUMP THE REPS. VOTE FOR CHANGE IN NOVEMBER.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

practicality
[Report this comment]
Posted by: wakeup on May 19, 2006 10:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm at the point where I'm not voting for bad candidates.
This would include Hillary Clinton.
Is there some rule that sociopathology is a required attribute of political leaders?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: practicality Posted by: kiatoa
» RE: practicality Posted by: wakeup

Comments are closed-

Don't support what you don't like
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rauschpfeife on May 19, 2006 11:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You object -- rightly -- to "tinkering BS" from the Democratic Party leadership, but then conclude that you'll still be a "cheerleader" for the party come November. As long as they can take you for granted they'll just keep tinkering.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

It's time for a "vote ALL the bums out!" movement.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: monkeywrench on May 19, 2006 11:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the ignorance of the general public, or its suseptability to advertising. It has been said that a people gets the government it deserves; so if corruption is running rampant in Washington, on both sides, who do we blame? We put 'em there, and we keep voting for incumbants, no matter how bad they are. It's just easier. Our collective laziness and our collective (and voluntary) ignorance are sowing the seeds of our collective demise as a democracy.

If we want to save ourselves and our country, we should can 'em all and start over. It's a risk, but at least there's the potential to put the "fear of God" in some of our self-congratulating Washington night-crawlers – that alone would be worth it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Democratic leadership
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kgs1947 on May 19, 2006 11:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no one, yes, no one, among the democrats who is taking any leadership in the face of our country's current political and ethical crises. So, who to elect next?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Democratic leadership Posted by: solrev

Comments are closed-

The DemRepub USA: Rule of Rich & Imperialism
[Report this comment]
Posted by: fairleft on May 19, 2006 11:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You're intellectually bankrupt if you think the following represent what people really really need, and if only 'our' candidate would make people hear:

"There isn't a [candidate] among them who even hints at anything like horror before our fatuous, commercial lives."

"... that our political system hasn't changed since the 18th century; that the lower house of Congress has 435 people "representing" 300 million citizens, in some cases thousands of miles away from their constituents; that the Consitution is outdated, obsolete, virtually unmodified..."

Those have squat to do with anything important. Our country in fact has two huge and straightforward problems: massive political corruption (regardless of how many representatives we have) which has produced nearly direct rule by the rich & big corporations (and so the poverty, pollution, and messed-up priorities), and out-of-control military-industrial complex imperialism.

_The_ problem, Jan, is not our fatuous lives (turn off your TV ferchrissake) or an old constitution, it's that Repubs and Dems are basically IN FAVOR OF those two huge problems, and plan to do NOTHING about them or plan to make them worse. So, please, at least get out of the Dem Party cheerleader outfit and start cogitating on the two big ones.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thom Hartmann for Prez? Posted by: fairleft

Comments are closed-

Decay and rot
[Report this comment]
Posted by: putman9 on May 19, 2006 1:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first Ameican republic is dead; BushCo and the Clintonistas are merely the decaying matter on the corpse. The cause of death: cancer caused by the judicial corporate takeover of the late 19th century, and the last sixty years of post-war imperium and bloated military/national security/intelligence infrastructure spending, and similiar carcinogens.

This is hard for Yanks to understand because the country is very, very young, and very, very optimistic compared to the Old World. Yanks have never experienced the death of a constitutional system before, the Civil War being as close to this as ever happened, and are now confused, sort of like a young girl not understanding that her lifeless, motionless great-grandfather is not just "asleep" on his death bed.

Hillary or some other ultra-hawk Dem in 08? I'd prefer you vote in--or Diebold to vote in--a real GOP candidate first, thanks. Just so people don't get false hopes.

Honestly. Accelerate the collapse, pull the life support plug, get it over with already. Don't drag this ghoulish charade out over another ten or twenty years. Cremate the body, start fresh Monday.

You can do it. If the East Germans could do it, if the Phillipinos could do it, if South Koreans could do it, if the Greeks could do it, if even dirt poor and harshly repressed South Americans can manage it...what's your excuse? Are they better, more brave than you, less soft and lazy? Are they more willing to suffer for change? Really?

I don't think so, but it doesn't matter, soon you won't have a choice: the pending economic collapse will hit soon, the bourgeois corporate regime will become more repressive in response to the inevitable unrest, and you'll be forced to run, fight, or submit. Then we'll see what Americans can really do, and if they are still made of the hard pioneer stuff they used to be.

I hope I won't be dissapointed. A fascist, tinhorn despotic America would be a catastrophe for the whole world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

The Same Ole' Same Ole' Won't work
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on May 19, 2006 2:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
anymore. The Corporations, Old Money and the Theocrats own the place now; they paid good money that they worked hard to steal from us for it and they WON'T JUST LET IT GO! Right now, the Dems and Repubs are either owned by the same masters, or they have no power.

First, people who WANT the damned power or have an agenda - ANY agenda - have the same disease those in power now have and should never hold power. We need a list of qualified people for The People to vote on. We also need to remove the Electoral College, which will necessitate a change in the Constitution. Back when, it wasn't practical to have a true Democracy - too many people to widely spread, too slow communications. Now it CAN be done, if we keep an eye on the process. The fewer people between us and the elected, the fewer people there are to be bought.

Lobbying needs to be gone too, and corporations should have NO RIGHTS, just people. Judges who show an anti-person, pro-corp bias need to be elsewhere than on the bench. Give 'em all brooms so they can be useful.

This system is hacked, busted and FUBAR. We need a new one, and by law, we have the power to make one.

Let's get on it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

The Same Ole' Same Ole' Won't work
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on May 19, 2006 2:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
anymore. The Corporations, Old Money and the Theocrats own the place now; they paid good money that they worked hard to steal from us for it and they WON'T JUST LET IT GO! Right now, the Dems and Repubs are either owned by the same masters, or they have no power.

First, people who WANT the damned power or have an agenda - ANY agenda - have the same disease those in power now have and should never hold power. We need a list of qualified people for The People to vote on. We also need to remove the Electoral College, which will necessitate a change in the Constitution. Back when, it wasn't practical to have a true Democracy - too many people to widely spread, too slow communications. Now it CAN be done, if we keep an eye on the process. The fewer people between us and the elected, the fewer people there are to be bought.

Lobbying needs to be gone too, and corporations should have NO RIGHTS, just people. Judges who show an anti-person, pro-corp bias need to be elsewhere than on the bench. Give 'em all brooms so they can be useful.

This system is hacked, busted and FUBAR. We need a new one, and by law, we have the power to make one.

Let's get on it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How? Posted by: Lincoln fan

Comments are closed-

We had a great candidate in 04!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: antiapathy on May 19, 2006 2:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Matt Taibbi is full of BS. Dennis Kucinich was the one candidate in 04 who had the balls to question the status quo. If you ever saw him give a speech or visited his website you would realize that he was the only Dem who actually wanted to change our corrupt system.

I think Dems in general are all corporate whores. There are a few rare exceptions to the rule, such as Paul Wellstone and Dennis K., but they behaved more like Greens then Dems.

If the progressive movement insists on clinging to tired notions that third parties can't win, then I think we need to back the best Dem we can find. It sure as hell isn't Kerry or Clinton though. Right now Feingold is the ONLY Dem worth even looking at for 08. If he doesn't get the nomination then I'll be voting Green again, and I invite the progressive community to MAKE A STATEMENT by refusing to vote for the corporate lackey who will inevitably win the Democratic nomination.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: We had a great candidate in 04! Posted by: lowcommotion

Comments are closed-

Be smart
[Report this comment]
Posted by: brucem on May 19, 2006 3:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great column, but election day is November 6, not November 2

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Be smart Posted by: Jan Frel

Comments are closed-

err
[Report this comment]
Posted by: daniel1982 on May 19, 2006 3:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Finding Nemo was a good movie.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Feingold/Kerrey would be great in 08
[Report this comment]
Posted by: veive on May 19, 2006 4:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kerrey/Feingold would be just as good but a little harder to elect. What's needed is a kickass, no BS slate with a clearly spelled out "Contract For All America" (That's not a "Contract on America" or "A Great Deal for the Fortunate Few."

That Contract will include things like "We ain't gonna be the Planet Police" and "America will become fiscally viable" and "America the Healthy" and "America for Americans First" and "If America works extra well for you, you can pay a little extra for her" and "Team America," etc. No more YOYO nation (You're on your own), we'll become a WITT (We're in this together) kinda country. Oh, and by the way corporate America, you're gonna start being patriotic again. No more replacing the Stars and Stripes with your quarterly reports. It's time to take back America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Progressive Maniac
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on May 19, 2006 4:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After he assured us that he would hold out to the end but then folding without a hint of backbone I can understand som bad polling number for Kerry. I walked precincts for Kerry in 2004 but would have qualms about voting for him after observing his lack of resolve.

Gore is another matter. He looked pretty foolish in the second debate, having paid too much attention to his consultants, but he seems to have learned a lot from the experience. I think he is worth another shot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Progressive Maniac Posted by: solrev
» RE: Progressive Maniac Posted by: Lindie

Comments are closed-

Polls?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kjadud on May 19, 2006 4:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't believe the poll is accurate. So many polls are designed to manipulate answers and have a small population. I don't trust a poll by the NYT anyway. DO YOU? Think about the recent one by the WP.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Sick of these Polls I Don't Participate in
[Report this comment]
Posted by: nobuko on May 19, 2006 5:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am fed up with Polls given to only 1000 people telling me this is what I'm thinking, and how I would vote!

No, I am not happy with Kerry and Gore for not putting up a fight after their elections was literally STOLEN from them! But God knows if they were up for re-eletion, I would certainly vote for them AGAIN! The People who participated in this Poll are probably the same ones that particpated in the other ones and I don't like it!

When does Polling 1000 people speak for at least the MINIMUM of 200 Million Eligible Voters! Its a Crock of Crap!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

It is easy...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on May 19, 2006 6:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.. their defeats made them completely worthless as candidates.

End of fucking story. There is no more. They lost because they were pansies who lost elections that any candidate with an ounce of compunction would have won in a landslide (ESPECIALLY the worthless KERRY).

Apparently the Democratic party is OBSESSED with pipedreams that will never come true. Gore. Kerry. Obama. Hilary.

Maybe part of why Democrats keep losing has something to do with THE CANDIDATES!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A hypothesis Posted by: Lincoln fan

Comments are closed-

lowcommotion
[Report this comment]
Posted by: lowcommotion on May 19, 2006 7:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both the Republicans and Democrats are opposite sides of the same Corporate politics game. Why are the DNC guns polling so low? It's possible that the voting population (not to be confused with "The American People") are wising up to the fact that the same big money lines the pockets of Members on both sides of the aisle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

voter holliday
[Report this comment]
Posted by: channing on May 19, 2006 8:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
nothing will resolve the apathy and ignorance of the american populace like a voter holliday, subscribed to by every eligible voter in america... it is not a fantasy to incumber the nation of the greatest democratic tradition with a holliday wherewith we enjoy the just fruits of our endeavor to create a government of the people, by the people, and for the people... the candidate matters less than the accountability assigned to the position... we therefore need not address the particular candidate in question until we sanction the act of voting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Your Votes will make no difference
[Report this comment]
Posted by: eyeman on May 19, 2006 10:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At this point in US history, votes will not matter. Platforms will not matter. grassroots activism, may be.
People are too busy to question the government , the corporations and the media.
This voting system is almost useless at this point. Only less than half vote. The winner gets half of the half - about 23 or 24%. half of those are are mostly manipulated - misinformed - brainwashed by CNN and FOX and the rest of the "free" media.
People are being Scared to death of the terrorists, immigrants, lesbians, Michael Moore, AhmadiNejad. They will vote the way CNN and FOX and the other gods want them to.
Dean was popular. The Media Killed him using his scream. 90% of the democratic delegates were antiwar. Kerry did not dare to stand against it.
If democrats come to power. Nothing changes. Democrats are no better than republicans. All in cahoots with large corporations, and the military industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Americans Want CHANGE. All Current Politicans Need To GO.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Joe on May 20, 2006 12:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Typical Democrats bombing make me proud. The American people seem to get it while Democrats & Republicans do not. The fact is Democrats & Republicans have more similarities than differences. Arguring about the two is about as pointless as fighting over a penny. Hopefully other political parties see this as an opportunity to step up and get out there to advertise their platforms. People are tired of the government imposing on them. An imposing that both Democrats & Republicans are responisible for. It's becoming hard to to say "freedom" and "America" with a straight face when people know it isn't true. People are very receptive and ARE LOOKING FOR A REAL, SIGNIFICANT CHANGE. If this country keeps going in the same direction HOPE will dissapear meaning people will just go through the motions. What's the point having HOPE if you can't change anything. What's the point if you can't have more control over your life -- having people legislate how you live your life, having the government knowing your every activity. Wiping the governmental slate clean and starting fresh would go a long way restoring HOPE in the country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

HUGO CAVEZ FOR PRESIDENT OF USA
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kooz on May 20, 2006 5:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The best American leader lives in Venazuela.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

A New "Declaration of Independents"!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: EileenMac on May 20, 2006 5:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We the People...a unique and brilliant concept for ruling a nation. Maybe its time that "We the People" as individuals take back our God-(as you understand him/she/it)given right to rule ourselves.

Where in the Constitution is a political party given more power to govern than an individual American? Where in the Constitution are political parties recognized and authorized to exist as ruling entities equivalent to nobility or priests? Wasnt that the whole point of the American Revolution...to eliminate rule by monarchs and theocrats, who were nothing more than special interest groups who passed the power down from one generation to the next? Why are political party primaries funded by taxpayers' monies, so that these "good ol' boys" clubs/gangs can choose their mascot who can wear their respective "colors" in the form of an "R" or "D" in the ballot box?

Our Constitution declared that "We the People" are each a "party of one", and that an individual, not a group, shall be elected to office. We could start this process of true campaign reform by simply removing party designations from voter registration cards and from the ballot.

Imagine a truly representative House of Representatives, with men and women elected to serve and represent each and every American as an individual, and not as a puppet for the special interest groups that funded a party agenda. Perhaps its time for a new "Declaration of Independents".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

06 Candidates - The Real Deal!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: AlanSmithee on May 20, 2006 6:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Todd Cretien (CA)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Really, Really Hard
[Report this comment]
Posted by: vkobaya on May 20, 2006 7:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's tough. How do we decide what to do? Both Kerry and Gore massacred their Democratic opponents in the primaries and then laid down and were doormats for Bush, obvious sell outs to say nothing of fighting when it was obvious that they had lost by election fraud. Neither was really disturbed to lose to Bush as they identify not with the people of America, but with the wealthy and powerful and with Bush. Hillary and Bill aren't quite in the same class in terms of wealth with either Gore or Kerry, but is obvious neither of them sees anything in common with the real people of this nation. In fact, pretty clear that Bush doesn't regard us as the real United States but rather sees the wealthy and powerful as the only people who matter in this nation. Bush likes to accuse us of wanting class war, but it is clear that, in reality, he knows that war is already on and we know which side he is on. All three want to be president, but make it abundantly clear that they regard Bush as the next best thing. Personally, I thought Kerry's campaign was based on being a better Dubya than Bush.

How many members of the Democratic Party really are representatives of the people? Not Pelosi, nor Obama (that one is very disappointing), nor Reid. Off hand, I am not sure I think any of them other than Kucinich really has any commitment to the people. As for the rest of them, I regard as complicit with the Bush administration, coconspriators, accomplices and accesories to his crimes.

So what do we do? I've been advocating getting rid of all of them, not only the Republicans but a clean sweap, Democrats as well. Start over with a new constitution eliminating one of the most corrupting influences, the electoral college and the winner take all system. Also wipe all legal precedents, especially that evil clerical mistake that made corporations have the legal standing of a citizen.

There are drawbacks to such a solution. Nothing short of a full, shooting civil war (revolution) and the ensuing deaths, probably in the millions, or given the current state of warefare, into the tens of millions, will get the current assos out of power. Given how unstable Bush is, I wouldn't be surprised if he would rather hit the liberal big cities than relinquish power. Then also, do we start from the beginning with a completely new party or try to rebuild the Democratic party from the ground up eliminating all former leaders and movers and shakers from any positions of responsibility in the party. Or do we turn to an existing party as a structure to build upon, Greens, or maybe the Communist Party. Then again, the kind of results that the we saw in Russia and China are not inevitable, but almost everything but inevitable, probably out to 99.9%, okay, at least 90%.

It's pretty clear that democracy as we knew is has seen its day in this nation. I've advocated the most extreme solutions before, but, in truth, would like to see us build from within and salvage this system. Well, as I said, we really need to scrape the constitution and write a new one, without the electoral college and winner take all system. Also need to eliminate the mistake that gave corporations the full rights of citizens without any of the responsibilities. That's a tall order for rebuilding within the current frame of government , sigh, probably not possible without shots being fired, a lot of them. Okay, maybe you and I don't mind dying for the cause, but it is going to cost much more than that, our friends, our neighbors and our own families are also going to die. Is it worth that? I don't know. The reality is that such a war will involve mushroom clouds over American cities. That's a very, very high price to pay. To say that it is, might be as insane as the current vile lunatic sitting in the chair behind the desk in the Oval Office.

Vicki

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

face it
[Report this comment]
Posted by: anotherdeadliar on May 20, 2006 10:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it's time for a third party. the bulk of democrat and gop politicians are shills for a parasitic corporate overclass. i hope these obsolete spectacles remain steadfast in their whorish pandering, only so honest leaders will breakaway from the beast to form a new paradigm. it time for politics of truth and responsibilty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» it's time for a third party Posted by: Lincoln fan

Comments are closed-

Polling Data Misquoted
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rchusid on May 20, 2006 12:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your premise is incorrect and the poll data is misquoted.

The polls which supposedly show Gore and Kerry below Bush are totally different polls than the ones on Bush's approval rating. These polls have a high number of results reported as undecided which is not present in the Presidential approval ratings.

If you look at unfavorable ratings, you get a totally different result. For example, the New York Times/CBS poll gives John Kerry an unfavorable rating of 38%, while most recent polls give George Bush an unfavorable rating in the 60's.

The Democratic Daily discusses this further here and here.

Also note that two recent polls show John Kerry leading George Bush by a wide margin in head to head polls.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Simple language
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Jeffersonista on May 20, 2006 4:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why?

Because they are not real democrats, they are storebought corporate manakins paid to play act and lose to the corporate flunky choice. If they were or are real democrats they would talk about unions, health care, education, local infrastucture, things that matter to people. Instead they feed us a somewhat watered down version of bushs globalization and the elevation of corporations and money over people.

Untill corporate charters are repealed, you will never see a real democrat run.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Follow the Clues
[Report this comment]
Posted by: feller on May 20, 2006 5:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You lay out intriguing posisibilities by referring to hard data. follow your own logic. Is the time for a new Constitution at hand?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Hillary Clinton + Healthcare is a fantasy
[Report this comment]
Posted by: nbrown on May 20, 2006 7:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did the Clintons produce a national healthcare system in the 1990s? No.

Would it be more likely for Hillary to produce it in 2008, while still probably in Iraq, and under weaker economic conditions than we saw in the 1990s? No.

It is less likely than "not" that Clinton would give us healthcare.

Furthermore, Hillary doesn't even have a worker platform. Here are some of the things she has voted for:

- The PATRIOT Act (2001)
- The PATRIOT Act (2006)
- The Iraq war
- The Department of Homeland Security
- REAL ID Act

Hundreds of billions of dollars alone are being pumped into the government's admitted quest for oil. Where do you think that money's coming from? Who do you think is reaping the profits, and who do you think is paying the price?

Hillary Clinton is almost, but not quite, a neocon. Don't think about her party. Just look at her voting record -- that's who she is. A stone's trhow away from PNAC.

BTW, Jan, people like you give Hillary no incentive to vote differently. She knows you're in her pocket and she doesn't have to do anything to earn your vote. And so she won't. Hence, her voting record.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

a diff country had gore or kerry won , you betcha
[Report this comment]
Posted by: fuzypupy on May 20, 2006 8:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Were it not for hanging chads and Diebold machines, there would be a President Gore and/or President Kerry and there would not be a war in Iraq, there would not be 2,500 dead Americans in that war-torn country. There would have been no trillion dollars in tax breaks for the super-rich bankrupting the rest of the country, no NSA spy program. Whether or not there would have been a 9-11 will never be known."

check out evidence to the contrary on the internet .
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6545313046180631815

if we had a real democrat in the white house, we would not have had a 911, cheney took over NORAD 2 weeks before 911, bush's brother was in charge of security for the world trade center and rudy giulliani had a command center in bldg 7.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

but why are we talking what ifs?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: fuzypupy on May 20, 2006 8:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it is more important to get some kind of majority in one or both houses this november. ...
it would be nice if we had great choices but if we do we dont know about them just yet..
clinton could have accomplished a whole lot of good and hillary's health plan was never even known by most people due to the republican controlled houses and the mega corporate money from the k street project

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

We Really Need A New Party
[Report this comment]
Posted by: keenekarl on May 20, 2006 9:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Moderates and progressives are just crying out for a new party that is not beholden to all the special interests - that's what these polls really mean! People have had enough of politics as usual. People want someone who will stand up and stand out - someone who will be willing to separate themselves from their ties to any established party. People will gladly vote for someone willing to sacrifice his/her political future in an established political party for the good of this nation. People are saying: "Anybody but another Republican! Anybody but another Democrat!" People want REAL change, not just more of the same. Will anyone hear the cries?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Divide and Conquer!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: williameon on May 21, 2006 4:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Divide and Conquer

Black
White
Red/Yellow
Brown

Jew
Bible
Koran
Ashram
The Crown

Conservative
Progressive
Reptilian
Hypocrite
Get Down!

Wealthy
Poor
Middle Crass
Homeless
And
More

Terrorize
Torture
Fear
&
WAR!

These are the ties that divide us.
Everything accentuates the difference
Instead of our commonality
Viva la difference!
BU__! SH__!

No!
Get with the program.

This is what they want.
This is the program.
Everything is done for a reason
This is the MATRIX!

Divide and Conquer!
The fool.
For one reason!
WEALTH=POWER!!!!!!

We are all human beings.
Being controlled by wealth.
Thru their surrogate.
MASTER
The MATRIX!

Some positive human ideals are:
Peace, Brotherly Love, Helpfulness, Patience and Cooperation.

Instead of this:
We are being bombarded by:
Billionaire’s:
Stink Tanks
Faux Media
Fascist
Improper:
Proper-gander.

Our common goals:
A livable minimum wage!
Health Care!
An Education!
A Healthy
and
Peaceful
Work place
&
Environment to live in.

A decent job.

Is that too much to ask?
If it is?
The system has failed us.
REBOOT!
REPROGRAM!
GET The Viruses out of the system.
Give the BOOT
To the Corp-pirite shills and politicians

Redefine in modern terms the common positive goals of mankind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Waiting for the Election is too late.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: thepeasants on May 21, 2006 8:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both Gore and Kerry won their elections but rolled over and died. Why would anyone in their right mind vote for someone who betrayed themselves and the millions of people who voted for them by voting for them again? The truth is our system is broken and no longer represents us. We have no choice but to withdraw our consent from this corrupt, morally bankrupt system of government by any means nonviolently. If you wait for the election to make a change, you've already failed. Talk about Democrats and Republicans as if there's a difference is pointless. Aside from a few brave men most of our "leaders" are spineless, self-serving cretins that don't deserve any power. Peace!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Moderate to the Core
[Report this comment]
Posted by: c9542 on May 21, 2006 6:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, the constitution is outdated, but the Democratic party is still viable.

A moderate position, indeed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

I see a lot of posters bitching about how
[Report this comment]
Posted by: MEL810 on May 21, 2006 9:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kerry & Gore rolled over when they were defeated by Bushitas fraud..
But how many PEOPLE that voted for them in this country stood up & protested?
If that travesty had happened in any little insignificant Banana Republic, the people would have revolted. Europeans would have hit the streets and called strikes and forced a national re-vote. But us good old 'Mericans just sat there and took it up the rosy red. And we say we hated the Commies because they force crap down people's throats and are dictators brought in by fraud. DUH!!!
Perhaps if the people who voted for them nationwide (not just in Florida & Ohio) had hit the streets like the immigrants did a few weeks ago or people did enmasse in the sities, things MIGHT have been different.
And WHY didn't the Democratic leadership protest more?
And even after all the fraud, WHY are so many people still voting Republican?
WHY?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Are You a Weiner or a Loser!?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: motherwolfe on May 21, 2006 11:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well if you're the in the DLC run Democratic party you win both prizes. They castrated Gore, Kerry and much of our Congress, and several new potential candidates. We're all crying for backbones and spines and guts and balls?? It was the DLC that told them to BE QUIET AND DON'T ROCK THE BOAT. And that's why we lose over and over.
Everyone wants a champion to lead them in these times. But we've not offered up what it takes to drive people to the polls or to garner substantial numbers of crossover voters.
Calling Gore and Kerry losers?? That's a bit over the top. Almost every online political site repeatedly indicates Feingold and Gore are the top two leading candidates, by the people!
This writer sounds like Chris Mathews or Dick Morris! Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton and more Clinton.
Hillary's allied herself with Rupert and Schumer's'allied with Trump. Thats the DLC. And so very Republican-like.
The DLC forced the Patriot Act through.
We'll decide who our next President will be. Not the DLC.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Try Democracy
[Report this comment]
Posted by: elisabeth on May 23, 2006 7:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reason the polls are so low for the so called democratic presidental contenders is because the democratic party is a top down political organization, just like the republicans. Why don't they ask the registered democrats who they want and go with the person with the most popular support from the party? That is so basic. But, they will ignore the fact that democrats don't want Hilary because she supports the war. The democratic leadership must want a republican to win. As for me, I'm voting Green, because you can count on their platform (ten key values www.gp.org) and that they are not merely popularized by the power of corporate donations on the corporate media. So there is another option.
Don't democrats get it? The reason Bush's poll numbers are so low is because of the war and the spying and the response to Katrina. Find someone with a platform that actually opposes the Bush platform on these issues and viola! you have your 50+%. Democrats in name only do not fool people anymore.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

try democracy
[Report this comment]
Posted by: elisabeth on May 23, 2006 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What’s the big mystery? The democrats are a top down political organization, not bottom up where they actually select the candidate with the most support by registered democrats. If you want to beat Bush, and I know we do, we have to find a candidate that actually is an opposition to the Bush platform. People reject Bush’s war, his response to Katrina and NSA spying with out a warrant, among other things. Try a Green, you can count on their platform of ten key values (www.gp.org) and that they will not rely on corporate donations to create the media illusion of popularity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

There is a way
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Urstrly on May 23, 2006 6:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having just spent four days in Washington at Tikkun's conference for spiritually progressives, I would urge you all to read Michael Lerner's The Left Hand of God. Some 1200 people there rallied to the premise that our nation is in the midst of a great spiritual crisis driven by pursuit of greed and power. Lerner argues, and I agree, that we must force the Democrats (and the Greens and moderate Republicans) to embrace an agenda based not on fear but love and compassion for each other. He argues that we may win elections, but we cannot hold sway without a moral center. To which I say A-men!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Why do you think God sent in Muhammed!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: motherwolfe on May 23, 2006 9:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where in the hell do you guys get the idea that ALL those that AREN'T Right-wingers ARE THE ONES NEEDING THE HELP!
All the groups you cited have more courage and morals in their pinky than the majority of the 'Christian' right.
For a taste of real spirituality fo to the Grand Canyon or stand on Yosemite Valley.
Many of you need to get off this materialistic view of things-'when you don't like something anymore just throw it away and get a new one."
Just remember the percentages:
... the Republicans own about 40% of the vote. (approx)
... to win control OVER THEM you need at least 41% (approx)
... be Green, be Independant whatever
But if you really want to stop ANWR and protect our environment, for starters, then until you have that 41% all your own you better join forces at election time -for the good of the country. So suck in your 'spiritual' egos and get off your little moral pedestals and think about others-for a change.
One of the best Constitutional Professors in the country worries about the excessive powers being hoarded by the White House and would the next President give them back?
My money's on Feingold.

"The Tree of Liberty needs to be watered
from time to time with the blood of patriots."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

If it is Broke, Fix It!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: gar on May 24, 2006 7:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This government wasn't established as a two-party system. I don't think it was established with parties in mind at all.

The founders took a Jeffersonian view, thinking voters would vote their own interests rather than the interests of whoever could afford the most advertisements. Of course, things were different then. For one thing the vote was restricted to literate caucasion male property owners more than 21 years of age.

This restriction shows, despite all rumors to the contrary, this country was never set up as a "democracy" nor is it today. All white males over the age of 21 did not get the vote in this country until about 1818 or there abouts. The first president elected after that was Andrew Jackson. He was viewed by many in upper society at that time as pretty much of a ruffian. Many thought him almost illiterate himself, as well as being a "redneck." He was used as a perfect example of what happens when riff-raff are allowed to vote.

After the Civil War, African-Americans and other non-white males over the age of 21 received the right to vote (at least theoretically.) There followed a period of graft and corruption in government on a scale never before seen in this country. It was so devastating to the South that the area is only now recovering - at least it was recovering until the present regime.

In 1919 women received the vote. In 1920, Warren G. Harding was elected president with an overwhelming 60% of the popular vote. It was said at the time that he "just looked like a president." Harding immediately vetoed all hope of the U.S. joining the League of Nations thus assuring its ultimate failure.

Harding then went on to earn the title of "worst president ever", a title he held until the year 2000. The way this came about is eerily familiar. His downfall is called the Teapot Dome scandal. It involved oil, bribery, the illegal selling of government leases, murder, suicide and congressional hearings where cabinet members refused to testify pleading "national security." It eventually led to Secretary of the Interior Albert Fall, a former senator from New Mexico and a friend of Harding's, being convicted of taking bribes. This earned him the dubious distinction of being the first cabinet member to go to prison for a crime committed while in office.

Harding himself died in 1923 after only two years in office knowing he was in disgrace. There are rumors that his death was not from natural causes.

The last time voting rights were expanded was in 1971 when the legal age was lowered from 21 to 18. In 1972 Richard M. Nixon was re-elected as president with one of the widest margins ever. In 1974, he resigned in scandal and disgrace, famously declaring "I am not a crook."

Don't misunderstand. I am not saying voting rights should not have been expanded. My point is that our governmental system was not designed to be run by representatives elected by uninformed voters. As we have brought less literate and less informed voters into the system, we have experienced more and more chaos and curruption in government.

Again it needs to be recognised that this nation is not, and was not, set up to be a democracy. It was set up to be run by the elite (relatively speaking.) Once we get over our delusion that we live in a democracy and face the reality of the situation we can then look for a fix.

Since I don't believe people should be disenfrancised, the only other alternative I see is to change the system. If we are going to have "mob rule" we must have safeguards to ensure that no one mob is ever given complete power. That is, we must move away from winner-take-all type elections and move to "percentage" elections. That is, if a candidate for president gets 30% of the vote, his "mob" gets 30% of the representation - something similar to the European model.

Just a thought.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

you're right: trust is the issue
[Report this comment]
Posted by: MMiddle on May 24, 2006 9:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From Memphis: We can analyze this to death, but as a practical matter should focus on how trustworthy our candidate seems, how credible he or she is to people who take nothing for granted in keeping food on the table, or rent in the mailbox, or a smile on the boss's face; who know how hard yet critical that can be when skirting the abyss of homelessness and unemployment. From this angle, Kerry was the most catastrophic possible choice - Gore not far behind (remember stories of his behavior as a landlord?) - Hillary (an Illinois Republican, not an Ark. Dem) cut from same cloth. As Schweitzer of Montana has said - these are hard-working people who do not have time to research, analyze and vet the issues: they want someone whom they instinctively trust, whom they can rely on to do that. It's up to the Democratic party to find such a person, decide that he or she deserves that trust (Edwards? Warner? maybe; Harold Ford, no), and then give him (at this point) our all. A good place to start is to see who did or didn't support that bankruptcy bill.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

I was at the DNC Protests 2000...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Burton on May 25, 2006 6:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and was at the receiving end of not a little police brutality. Thanks to the Dems. So will I vote for them? Nope.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

its tough
[Report this comment]
Posted by: evanrick on May 19, 2006 12:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its hard to step back to try and understand a partys political problems and its impact on America when you support it so much.
I think democrats do have an identiy crisis, but thats OK because they do try and represent everyone instead of catering to the wealthy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: its tough Posted by: Louisa
» RE: its tough Posted by: DoctorAndy
» Are you nuts? Or just sleeping? Posted by: Steven Wanzell

Comments are closed-

Could it be the MSM???
[Report this comment]
Posted by: HawkSpirit on May 19, 2006 2:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every damn news program or newspaper article states the Democrats do not have a backbone. How in the hell can you standup, if you do not get to go the secret meetings where hidden bills are written by their republican conterparts? Reporters and citizens are still being investigated, discenters are still being attacked by the Rove machine and/or even thrown into jail for protesting the war. There is no one MSM out there even giving them a chance and that goes for some progressive media too. It is so damn easy to sit at our computers and bitch about the Democrats, but just what you could do in their place? Things just do not make it TV or the press, like Russ Feingold walking out in protest yesterday. I am so tired of hearing this s--t and I start to tune out and even want to just give up. I know we cannot do that. This election is really it and if we fail good bye the land of the free and we the people for ever!!!!

Then too, everyone is focused on the Nov o6 elections and there is no point right now to get geared up for 08. I only have so much money to give to help elect a congress that might investigate this gang of criminals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Could it be the MSM??? Posted by: American Reflections

Comments are closed-

They Were Losers
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ChristopherLL on May 19, 2006 3:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no doubt that the Democratic Party has the opportunity and organization to counter the Republican Party's politics based on power, wealth, militarism and religious dogma but Clinton, Gore and Kerry had their chance and can only be seen as losers. Hillary had her chance to change healthcare and failed, miserably, mostly becasue of her own sene of omnipotence and obvious ignorance of the whole issue of what is behind healthcare in this country. It is a business and makes money and those who control this industry are not about to lose their golden egg. Gore lost and is gone, Kerry lost and is gone. Going back in time and resurrecting losers is not the answer. What is needed is a vocal and comitted leader who actually listens to what those in this country are saying and offers real solutions, not rhetoric. Most people know the difference and that our problems cannot be solved overnight or with one momentous act. It is a new direction that is important. And that direction is simply to start taking care of those Americans who make this country work. It was not the generals or privates who returned from WWII to build this country rather the junior officers and NCO's (like my father) who learned how to get the job done and raise a family. So I am not concerned with the leaders or those who need to be told what to do but with those who are the foundation of this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: They Were Losers Posted by: hoscot
» RE: They Were Losers Posted by: douglashoyt
» Hillary and Healthcare Posted by: blueneck
» They ARE Losers Posted by: Anyse

Comments are closed-

PULEEZE!!!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: brendastarr on May 19, 2006 4:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wake up!

The two party system is a delusion; and Hillary is a hawk.

The way things are now, neither side has a candidate with vision and "without vision the people perish."

Wake up to the fact that America has become the empire of the world and until we WAKE UP to the fact that we must share and care for this planet, the democrats will not/cannot save us.

We must save ourselves!!!

RISE UP/INTIFADA and grab your liberties or you will not have them.

WE THE PEOPLE are the government only if we are vigilent, speak out and hold all leaders accountable.

DO SOMETHING or nothing will change.
1,200 patriotic passionate spiritual progressives are doing something NOW in DC:
www.tikkun.org


Catch up on the birth of the social and spiritual movement in
Chapter 2: The Revolution has started now...
http://www.wearewideawake.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Bipolar America
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bulbman on May 19, 2006 4:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Much as it almost makes me choke to say so, I think Peggy Noonan is on to something. Americans are steeped in the twin mantras of "get-it-while-you-can" and "do-it-if-it-feels-good" as delivered by the commercial media, which conflicts with the strong streak of puritanism that runs like an underground stream in our collective subsconscious. We want it all, but feel guilty about it at the same time. In sum, the effect is that our culture is bipolar. I think that most Americans, whether right or left-leaning, view themselves as centrists. "Don't rock the boat" even if the boat is leaking. While we dislike politicians whose incompetance and superficial messianic willfulness courts national and international disaster, we loathe those that 1) suggest we change our ways and 2) lose elections. The "comeback kid" Bill Clinton succeeded in bouncing back after defeat because of his uncanny way of connecting with people (or seeming to) and his pragmatic - and decidedly centrist - approach to policy. While the majority of my fellow citizens collectively sense that change is needed in some amorphous way, they revolt at the suggestion that they individually must change their ways. I do not believe that centrist politics really provide any solution to the profound problems that are society is facing. Sadly, I don't see anyway out of this without some galvanizing situation akin to the Depression.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bipolar America Posted by: COC

Comments are closed-

The 'Party System' is a sham
[Report this comment]
Posted by: inanaturallight on May 19, 2006 4:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I expect I will be somewhat of a cheerleader for the Democrats also, although I dread the thought of Hillary as President, she's done nothing for me or the US as my senator. I think the problem we have is not the Constitution- it could use some adjustments but all in all it's a pretty good plan- but rather this 'two-party system' that the politicians cooked up long ago to scam us all. It reflects some idea that things are either going to be black or white, one or the other, and disguises the fact that successful politicians become that way by pandering to the money that gets them elected. Those that stay just one side or the other of some magical line, defined by the rich and the rich corporations, are rewarded with success, and those that actually perceive, care, and act on their beliefs are ignored or sidelined- how many of the Democrats have actually gotten behind Feingold when he stood up for what is right? If people like him were the norm of the Democratic party I could have some faith, but most Democrats are just less conservative Republicans wearing donkey pins.
If we tossed this 'two-party' BS, and had politicians that stood alone on what they believed without some corporate financed machine propping them up as a group and pretending this group was better than that group, then maybe we could figure out which one was the best of the two or five running for a particular office and overall have representation that actually represented their constituents, not their party and the financial structure supporting it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Growing sophistication of public re: MSM political manipulations? Time for a NEW Harvest King!!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: cry0fan on May 19, 2006 4:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are in essence referring to the extemely low poll numbers for the president AND congress.

Now, the poll numbers are quite low, historically low. And it is not just the war. I suspect there are several factors.
First, more and more of the general public are become more and more sophisticated with respect to seeing how the mass media, esp. TV news manipulates us in various ways when it comes to politically sensitive areas such as the war, taxes, immigration, the internet, etc. I have worked in network TV, albeit briefly, and it took me several years to figure out what was going on. But growing numbers of Americans are starting to figure it out. THis may be why the polls numbers are getting lower. First, the media had to sell us on Iraq, and they managed to do that. Then we were all exposed to their machinations during the 2004 campaign, and they sold us on the idea that Bush and Kerry were radically different.

Now they are selling us on the idea that mass immigration is good, and that we are evil if we try to stop it. And so forth.

And of course there is the ongoing selling of "free" trade.

I think this immigration selling campaign may have made some of America more aware of media manipulation. Here in Houston, the local news media is selling hard, and it is pretty obvious. Now, I am more sophisticated in the ways of media persuasion, but I think a certain percentage of Americans are starting to catch on.

Also, various subversive knowledge is starting to leak into the populace via the internet. Young people are QUITE adept at internet usage. They are all over it. And the internet has a lot of info about media propaganda, about how all these American wars are started the same way, and we have a few "radical middle" people like me on the Net throwing a monkey wrench into the whole deal.

These subversive perspectives may be starting to leak into some of the populace.
Also via the Net, more and more Americans are starting to have a growing awareness of European healthcare and social welfare state, etc., which causes some of them to look at our political debate and ask "WTF is going on here!?"

Now the politicians and the mass media and the neoliberal think tanks and business lobbies (a conglomeration I call CorpGovMedia) are well aware of this polling trend. So what they are doing is sacrificing Bush. THey are giving him up and setting the stage for a Dem president and Congress. Of course THEY will do the choosing of who will be in the game to win.

THis technique takes advantage of the old IndoEuropean redemptive-sacrificial man-god tradition, wherein the harvest king from last year is symbolically (or otherwise) sacrificed, and all the evil and bad goes with him (Mithra, Osiris, Jesus, etc). And the new Harvest King reigns and the spirit of the tribe is renewed.

The media is symbolically killing off the old harvest King (Bush) and thus purging the old, making way for a fresh, new, CorpGovMedia, neoliberal rebirth, and thus manipulating us into belleving in the system once more. It is an age old ritual -- "Eat of his body," etc etc etc. Well, via the media destruction of him, we are about to eat Bush.

Once the path is clear for the NEW, Democratic "Harvest King," CorpGovMedia can use race guilt propaganda to manufacture consent for more mass immigration and for a brand spanking new war built around the supposed genocide in Darfur.

Same as it ever was....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

America is too conservative- Red State liberals please comment!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: medstudgeek on May 19, 2006 4:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just between lefties, that is the honest truth. America is a country far to the right of Europe for various historical reasons and we cannot expect the kind of success the Euros have. Sorry. There are a lot of good people in this country, but there were a lot of good people in Taliban-controlled Afghanista too.

Sure Fox News is a blight on humanity, but we never ask ourselves: why did it become popular? The MSM launches thousands of products that fail. It succeeded because, even though the MSM is fiscally conservative (i.e. a pro-corporate sycophant), it's socially liberal (supports tolerance for gays and lesbians), and people find themselves to the right of the MSM. those people found Fox News much to their liking. There is a vast benighted swath of land in the middle of the country that we have to win over somehow. Hillary as a Northeasterner couldn't do it; we need a red-stater. (I know she was from Arkansas but everyone sees her as a northerner now.) We also need someone with charisma. I'd rather go drinking with Al Gore than Bush any time of day but none of the electorate agrees with me, and they vote for people they like personally. Edwards is our best choice, though he's not perfect.

Unfortunately, we're seen as too weak on national security, so Hillary's warmongering might not be such a bad idea electorally speaking. Don't think I support the war; I don't. But don't fool yourselves into thinking the right-wing MSM has deceived a naturally good nation of lefties into voting for idiots. The MSM is a bunch of corporate lapdogs, but the country is far too right-wing anyway.

Out of pure curiosity, would any residents of red states care to comment? And I don't mean you lucky guys in Austin telling Bush jokes with Molly Ivins all day long, I mean
the guys and gals deep in enemy territory.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I also wondered about that.... Posted by: fool-on-the-hill
» Straight party loyalty, I think. Posted by: medstudgeek
» Yup, that's it. Posted by: medstudgeek

Comments are closed-

we need someone
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rsaxto on May 19, 2006 5:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need someone to tell the whole truth to us about all the criminal Republicans and criminal CEOs and Republican lite so-called Democrats like Gore, Kerry and Hillary and about the exceedingly deadly proposed war of the USA against much of the rest of the world. Only the crazy Bushies want stupid Armageddon so all the rest of us need to gang up on the Bushies and totally get them out of office and replaced with real patriots, real Democrats, real survivalists and real environmentalists. The real future can be very good but only if all the criminals are flushed out of the government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: we need a radicaal change Posted by: Lincoln fan
» Gore-shmore Posted by: YogiBear

Comments are closed-

The answer isn't an old cliche
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Lincoln fan on May 19, 2006 5:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author is perfectly aware that the ship is sinking and then recommends rearranging the deck chairs. Our big problem is that both parties represent the corporate establishment. Neither party represents the people. Voting for the lesser evil will only perpetuate evil. The only way that we can break the control of both parties by the establishment is to take control ourselves.

There are four ways to do this:
First: Reform campaign financing and lobbying laws. This has been tried many times and failed.
Second: Organize a third party that represents us. This has been tried many times and failed.
Third: An armed revolt. This would be insane.
Fourth: Use the tried and often successful tactics of labor unions. That is to make your demands to management and threaten to not play their game. If the union is strong enough they win.

We can dictate the platforms of both parties before the election. We can force them both to represent us. To make "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" a reality, click on A new idea

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The answer isn't an old cliche Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: The answer isn't an old cliche Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: The answer isn't an old cliche Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: The answer isn't an old cliche Posted by: Lincoln fan
» A very good point. Posted by: Lincoln fan

Comments are closed-

Gore and Kerry didn't fight back when they had the chance in 2000 and 2004 respectively.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: NDnative on May 19, 2006 6:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To be doing it after they lost would be too little too late. That is the lingering pissed off anger in the minds of voters that keeps these fellows down low in the "polls".

Also, Gore did not run in 2004 when he had the perfect opportunity to fight to take back what was stolen from him. Whether or not he runs in 2008, the damage done to this country will have been beyond even a remote chance of repair.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Amen!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: riley on May 19, 2006 6:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The two-party system and the lobbying empire built in Washington need to go.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Amen! Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Amen! Posted by: kryptx
» RE: Amen! Posted by: harrysf

Comments are closed-

The problem is that they don't look like winners
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bookwoman on May 19, 2006 6:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Al Gore inherited the right to run for President by serving as VP for eight years. That should not be the only thing on which to base a candidate. He was an unfortunate choice. John Kerry also was an unfortunate choice. He was chosen by coming out on top in the Chinese Fire Drill of eight or nine candidates which was the Democratic primary races. Even the Senior Senator from his own home state was reticent in his enthusiasm I think the Dems should have listened because Ted Kennedy's political instincts are very well honed.

Neither one of these men was a good choice to run against George Bush. I'm not saying "W" was a good choice, but he was made to look good by the image weavers in his party. Add to that the spin that he could protect us from anything (Mother Nature took care of that fantasy), and the election in 2004 was a done deal.

I don't think Hillary can win the Presidency, and I think the Dems would be mistaken to choose her. She is not Bill, who for all his personal peccadillos, (if they are any of our business), was a great President.

I think the Democrats had a winning candidate in 2004 except they put him in second place behind Kerry. I think they should take another look at John Edwards. The real wage rate in this country has fallen like a rock in spite of what we are told is a burgeoning economy. Edward's grasp of the pain in the lives of the average American could make him a winner.

I hope the Democrats don't make the same mistake in 2008 which they did in 2000 and 2004.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Trouble with the Democrats Is . . .
[Report this comment]
Posted by: cellis56 on May 19, 2006 6:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . there aren't any.

They stand for nothing. Nancy Pelosi's out there PROMISING not to impeach Bush.

For Christ's sakes, impeachment is a trial and she's promising not to try a man about whom the most conservative person, if he/she's honest, must say, well, there are sure some questions about the legality of what was done. And who is Nancy Pelosi to determne whether justice will be served in the name of millions of Americans who didn't vote for her and to whom she won't respond when they complain (Are you a voting member of my district??).

Pelosi and Barbara Lee are opposing anti-war Congressional candidates in order to consolidate votes behind pro-war Democrats. They imagine the rest of us care what happens to their Party. Precisely because of this lack of vision and focus, the Democratic Party is already dead. Only the dying spasms of the Republican Party can make them appear slightly less moribund.

When black Floridians were deprived of the vote in the previous "election," Kerry didn't stand up. Gore didn't stand up. Nobody spoke for the disenfranchised because nobody in politics speaks for anybody who isn't rich and powerful. These SOBs are nothing but fat cats adopting a few lame slogans that might fly in poorer neighborhoods.

Barbara Lee no longer speaks for me and neither do any of her co-conspirators. Damn them all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

I think the real point here
[Report this comment]
Posted by: sls1982 on May 19, 2006 6:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is that government has streched way beyone having a realistic understanding of American society. I believe that most Americans are extermely tired of hearing the same old rhetoric that does not apply to their lives. Its a matter of understanding your constituents and i hate to say it but both parties are completely out of touch and we know it and we're sick of it. We need a new type of grassroots leadership that understands American society and struggle; not a politician who is more concerned with keeping their job and making money. its that simple.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I agree except--- Posted by: Lincoln fan

Comments are closed-

Someone mention the Depression-PAUL KRUGMAN in NYT say its is coming soon
[Report this comment]
Posted by: HawkSpirit on May 19, 2006 6:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am sorry NTY makes people pay to read Paul Krugman. His article "Coming Down to Earth" points out our reality of our great American debt going to hit like now or very soon from now. We will not long be able to borrow for other countries and we will not be able to afford to import cheap goods paid for selling and/or refinancing our houses that also will lose their value. Maybe those small mom and pop business will have to come back and as well manufacturing jobs, if we cannot afford to import goods and export jobs anymore. All we need now is public financed elections and then maybe we can once again be the land of the free and the brave.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Reading Krugman Posted by: bettsoff

Comments are closed-

ah, what the hey
[Report this comment]
Posted by: karyse on May 19, 2006 6:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think Gore or Kerry can win, I won't vote for Hllary, and I, like many Americans have decided that voting is nothing but a legitimation exercise for the powers that be. I've been wracking my brain for a cadidate that can galvanize people.

Is there any reason Bill Clinton can't run again? At least that would be fun.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ah, what the hey Posted by: cellis56
» RE: ah, what the hey Posted by: Jeanne
» RE: ah, what the hey Posted by: Ellie1

Comments are closed-

Pragmatism vs. protest
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bettsoff on May 19, 2006 6:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not going to support a party that has its hands in my pockets, its mouth on the dick of corporations, and its head up its ass. I will, however, support candidates that I think do none of those things. Perhaps if everyone did the same down to the lowest levels, the Dems would become a party we'd enjoy supporting instead of the lesser of two evils that we bitch about.

Is Hillary getting my vote? HELL fuck no.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pragmatism vs. protest Posted by: LeslieGem
» Amen! Posted by: Lincoln fan

Comments are closed-

What's the definition of insanity?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: LeslieGem on May 19, 2006 6:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh yeah -- doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.

The attitude expressed in this article is what got us here in the first place. Why on earth would I support a political party and their candidates if I either don't agree with their positions or have been disappointed with their performance? I cringe to say this, but I have to hand it to "Dr." James Dobson -- what does he say to the people he elected who are now disappointing him? He treatens then on national T.V.!! What do we do -- "oh well, maybe next time it will work out better, let's give it a little more time, what other choice do we have..." Come on!!!!!! And we wonder why they're winning?!!?!

I'm putting my energy into the numerous 3rd parties who aren't afraid to call a spade a spade and actually have an agenda that I agree with. You know, this country didn't start out with these two parties -- whatever happened to the Whigs, etc.? They died from lack of support and competition from upstarts. That's the American way, isn't it? ; ) Let's unleash that power again and actually get something done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A vote for Honest Abe Posted by: Lincoln fan

Comments are closed-

New big names
[Report this comment]
Posted by: beetruetoyou on May 19, 2006 7:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Move over old big names in the Democratic party and make room for some new big names....John Warner (my exgovernor with the highest rating of any VA governor ever and won in a VERY RED state) and Barak...but only if Molly or Oprah don't run.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: New big names Posted by: jnelson4765

Comments are closed-

THE END IS NEAR
[Report this comment]
Posted by: zoza on May 19, 2006 7:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This big bumbling oaf of a country is ambling it's way toward the precipice. There is no stopping it, so hunker down. That is the only solution for the somnabulistic Americans who sleep, or are more interested in who's going to take the American Idol prize, than whether or not their children can speak English.

A cataclysm of biblical proportion is the only remedy for awakening because the status quo has become so imbedded. We have an idiot for president and even more idiotic fools as his opposition. We have a public so stupid that they voted him in and think that god is the tooth fairy. We have a press that is only interested in the financial bottom line. We have a planet that is sick. This is indeed a ship of fools with a confederacy of dunces for a crew that has been idling away in the horse latitudes while some few of us are praying for a breeze and not even getting a whisper.

Hillary? Kerry? Gore? Polosi? Please! The wheels are coming off... and believe me, a Noonan fan I ain't. I am afraid that we are in too deep on both sides to be able to resolve this catastrophe with common sense. It will take a common disaster to slap us into our senses.

So save your breath and dig in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Attitude of a big-time loser Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Attitude of a big-time loser Posted by: Lincoln fan

Comments are closed-

You Are The Problem
[Report this comment]
Posted by: NoPCZone on May 19, 2006 7:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Be pragmatic. Take a good, long look at reality, and recognize that even though there isn't a Democrat in Washington who will admit that our political system is profoundly sick and obsolete, in the real world, the Democratic Party is currently all we have. So support it anyway..

That's like MLK saying that Jim Crow is a lamentable and cruel institution, but it's all we have. Like Ghandi saying the British are all we have. Like Havel & Walesa saying that the Soviets are all we have.

The same game is being played in the G.O.P. on it's base. Different issues, but with the same motivation and result. They give you lip service and then go on selling you out to their paymasters. As long as we stay trapped in this two party system things will not change in the aggregate. Elect a few Greens or Libertarians to Congress and see what happens in 2008.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You Are The Problem Posted by: Jan Frel
» RE: You Are The Problem Posted by: NoPCZone
» Pathetic Posted by: AlanSmithee
» RE: Pathetic Posted by: kryptx
» RE: Pathetic Posted by: ccbite
» RE: YOU Are The Problem Posted by: CounterCorp

Comments are closed-

Its the corporations stupid!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: gramps on May 19, 2006 7:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They own our culture, our politicians, our media, our military, and they have their greasy fingers in our brain. They are sociopathic robots with but one prime directive, the bottom line. Nobody owns them because they were made that way to seperate liability from ownership. Everyone in a corporation is an employee and the CEO is an employee hired to take the rap for any criminal activity.

While lobbying is a right of human beings, foreign governments and corporations should never be allowed to influence our government. Foreign countries have ambassadors and corporations can write letters. Corporations own the patents and are even patenting our genes. There is nothing wrong with the Democratic Party except that it too has been bought and paid for by the corporations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

The "Wheels Have Come Off" Because
[Report this comment]
Posted by: malcolmartin on May 19, 2006 7:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Much like Charles Darwin’s immutable truths regarding of the origins and evolution of life, Karl Marx guided us through the reasons capitalism was born, why it would thrive and dominate for a time, and how its inherent contradictions condemn it to be replaced by a superior economic system. Problem is capitalism in its last throes, irrational and increasingly insane, is now armed with doomsday weapons and has created an immune system for itself. It influences culture and controls the mass media and education across a growing part of the world, places its servants in seats of political and military power, and creates philosophy and myth to glorify its own existence.

In the years ahead capitalism will take increasing advantage of war, disaster, disease, terror, and slavery to feed itself. It will seek to establish fascist regimes in the United States and other countries where bourgeois democracies have begun to hinder profits. Wholesale destruction and regime change will be visited on the oil producing states like Iraq, Iran and Venezuela. Millions will die when the United States, China, and the European Union fight the wars for control of world markets and access to resources.

Really only one question remains. Will humanity and the planet Earth survive the end of capitalism? To a great degree, our self-preservation depends on the building of an effective class-conscious resistance here at home, in the belly of the beast. What is to be done?

First, people who know better must stop deluding the American people. There will be no more real elections in this country. The mass media and the electoral machinery and both major political parties are now fully under the control of capital. Observe the impotent and clownish Democratic Party and one conclusion is unavoidable: elections that matter are a quaint feature of America’s past. A coup brought George Bush to power in 2000 and he was reinstalled in 2004 and as long as he remains a useful idiot of the ruling clique his public approval rating could drop to zero and he will still reside in the White House. At the same time Bush is expendable in the blink of an eye if he becomes a drag on profits. He would be replaced with another everyman, a new actor and a person better able to read the script and parrot the talking points. Political dog-and-pony show aside, capitalism’s minions will only release their grip on us if and when the system is confronted by a united and organized working class in open rebellion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Look, EVERY politician is a whore to the Military-Corporate Offense Complex
[Report this comment]
Posted by: xbj on May 19, 2006 8:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately, that says it all. EVERY POLITICIAN IS A WHORE TO THE MILITARY-CORPORATE-OFFENSE WAR INDUSTRY.

The point is, do you want a whore with at least a social conscience and SOME level of autonomy, or a whore that is a sociopathic psychopath mass-murderer and wannabe Nazi?

Elections have ALWAYS been about choosing the LESSER OF TWO EVILS. And so it ever shall be until someone somehow makes ALL corporate and political contributions from ALL ORGANIZATIONS COMPLETELY ILLEGAL, WITH NO LOOPHOLES, and limits personal political contributions to $1000. PERIOD. Then you'd get good people into politics once again, instead of bastards and the occasional good person who merely transforms into a whore and bastard.

And polls... let me tell you something about polls. There is an entire INDUSTRY built around PRE-SCREENING people willing to be polled and supplying lists of so-called "random" people to whomever pays them.

Anyone can make a poll say anything they want, as long as they ask the "right" people the "right" questions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Leave the Constitution alone
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jverner on May 19, 2006 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's the only thing standing between us and rule by executive fiat. Even now, Bush says the Constitution does not apply to him when he thinks it shouldn't. As for the electoral process, take another look at the Constitution. It does not mandate just two political parties, and remember the Electoral College is really the entity that picks the president.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

How about a new game
[Report this comment]
Posted by: solrev on May 19, 2006 8:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It probably does not matter which poll name you circulate the poll numbers will be low. The people have lost faith in politicians and the political process. Only 50% of the people ever had any faith in it to begin with. Personally, I am not going to waste my time playing “the lesser of two evils” game. This is what I need to hear if you want my participation.

1. We will be oil independent by 2020 is a sham. It is no longer good enough to reduce our pollution. If we let China follow the path we traveled, the planet will be dead by 2020. So, talk to me about producing fusion energy on the moon and providing it to every human being on this planet at low cost. If you like city water, you will love planet earth energy. How soon can you do that?

2. Stop outsourcing and insourcing my job. Make labor costs competitive in the US without destroying my standard of living. I did my part to increase productivity. So, talk to me about taking the health care costs off the back of my employer. Talk to me about universal health care. If you like city water you will love universal health care. How soon can you do that?

3. Stop pushing my grandchildren into debt with your ballooning debt. So, talk to me about being the tax and reduce the debt party. It is not good enough to balance the budget.

Do whatever it takes to accomplish these three goals and I will vote for you. Do it not and I will destroy you. The final solution – revolution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Don't tell us. Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Don't tell us. Posted by: solrev
» RE: Don't tell us. Posted by: Lincoln fan

Comments are closed-

A work-around...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kiatoa on May 19, 2006 9:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Plurality voting is fundamentally broken. It creates a binary system: Republican or Democrat. Any solution must account for this. Given that the chances of reforming the voting system is essentially zero the only option left is to either take over one of the existing parties or to get a massive rallying behind a third party candidate. I created my web site www.kiatoa.com for this very purpose. The idea is an approval voting based poll combined with a mechanism that allows you to differentiate between the votes of people who are willing to think deeply and those who are not. So log in to kiatoa and help choose who we should rally behind. I'm working frantically to finish the site (it is still somewhat rough) but it is usable. If you know of a site where someone is already doing this please post here and let me know. Lets work together to choose who to vote for in the next election!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A work-around... Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: A work-around... Posted by: solrev
» RE: A work-around... Posted by: kiatoa

Comments are closed-

3rd Party is the only sane vote in Nov.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: AlanSmithee on May 19, 2006 10:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Pragmatism" is what got us the craptastic neoliberal '90s.

"Pragmatism" is why the neocons have full spectrum dominance today.

Screw "Pragmatism"

"Pragmatism" isn't the 3rd Way, it's the Coward's Way. "Pragmatistist" are spineless weasels afraid to do the right thing because it's too hard.

Pathetically wishing for tidbits from the corporate single party system is fine for whipped-dog democrats and hopeless party flacks, but the rest of us don't have that fucking luxury. To put it a way that even a mouthbreathing Clinton-toady like Randi Rhodes could understand:

WE CAN'T AFFORD YOU!!!

It's long past time to jettison the Whigs of the New Millennium and start building a new party. Hell, several new parties. DUMP THE DEMS. DUMP THE REPS. VOTE FOR CHANGE IN NOVEMBER.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

practicality
[Report this comment]
Posted by: wakeup on May 19, 2006 10:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm at the point where I'm not voting for bad candidates.
This would include Hillary Clinton.
Is there some rule that sociopathology is a required attribute of political leaders?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: practicality Posted by: kiatoa
» RE: practicality Posted by: wakeup

Comments are closed-

Don't support what you don't like
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rauschpfeife on May 19, 2006 11:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You object -- rightly -- to "tinkering BS" from the Democratic Party leadership, but then conclude that you'll still be a "cheerleader" for the party come November. As long as they can take you for granted they'll just keep tinkering.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

It's time for a "vote ALL the bums out!" movement.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: monkeywrench on May 19, 2006 11:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the ignorance of the general public, or its suseptability to advertising. It has been said that a people gets the government it deserves; so if corruption is running rampant in Washington, on both sides, who do we blame? We put 'em there, and we keep voting for incumbants, no matter how bad they are. It's just easier. Our collective laziness and our collective (and voluntary) ignorance are sowing the seeds of our collective demise as a democracy.

If we want to save ourselves and our country, we should can 'em all and start over. It's a risk, but at least there's the potential to put the "fear of God" in some of our self-congratulating Washington night-crawlers – that alone would be worth it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Democratic leadership
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kgs1947 on May 19, 2006 11:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no one, yes, no one, among the democrats who is taking any leadership in the face of our country's current political and ethical crises. So, who to elect next?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Democratic leadership Posted by: solrev

Comments are closed-

The DemRepub USA: Rule of Rich & Imperialism
[Report this comment]
Posted by: fairleft on May 19, 2006 11:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You're intellectually bankrupt if you think the following represent what people really really need, and if only 'our' candidate would make people hear:

"There isn't a [candidate] among them who even hints at anything like horror before our fatuous, commercial lives."

"... that our political system hasn't changed since the 18th century; that the lower house of Congress has 435 people "representing" 300 million citizens, in some cases thousands of miles away from their constituents; that the Consitution is outdated, obsolete, virtually unmodified..."

Those have squat to do with anything important. Our country in fact has two huge and straightforward problems: massive political corruption (regardless of how many representatives we have) which has produced nearly direct rule by the rich & big corporations (and so the poverty, pollution, and messed-up priorities), and out-of-control military-industrial complex imperialism.

_The_ problem, Jan, is not our fatuous lives (turn off your TV ferchrissake) or an old constitution, it's that Repubs and Dems are basically IN FAVOR OF those two huge problems, and plan to do NOTHING about them or plan to make them worse. So, please, at least get out of the Dem Party cheerleader outfit and start cogitating on the two big ones.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thom Hartmann for Prez? Posted by: fairleft

Comments are closed-

Decay and rot
[Report this comment]
Posted by: putman9 on May 19, 2006 1:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first Ameican republic is dead; BushCo and the Clintonistas are merely the decaying matter on the corpse. The cause of death: cancer caused by the judicial corporate takeover of the late 19th century, and the last sixty years of post-war imperium and bloated military/national security/intelligence infrastructure spending, and similiar carcinogens.

This is hard for Yanks to understand because the country is very, very young, and very, very optimistic compared to the Old World. Yanks have never experienced the death of a constitutional system before, the Civil War being as close to this as ever happened, and are now confused, sort of like a young girl not understanding that her lifeless, motionless great-grandfather is not just "asleep" on his death bed.

Hillary or some other ultra-hawk Dem in 08? I'd prefer you vote in--or Diebold to vote in--a real GOP candidate first, thanks. Just so people don't get false hopes.

Honestly. Accelerate the collapse, pull the life support plug, get it over with already. Don't drag this ghoulish charade out over another ten or twenty years. Cremate the body, start fresh Monday.

You can do it. If the East Germans could do it, if the Phillipinos could do it, if South Koreans could do it, if the Greeks could do it, if even dirt poor and harshly repressed South Americans can manage it...what's your excuse? Are they better, more brave than you, less soft and lazy? Are they more willing to suffer for change? Really?

I don't think so, but it doesn't matter, soon you won't have a choice: the pending economic collapse will hit soon, the bourgeois corporate regime will become more repressive in response to the inevitable unrest, and you'll be forced to run, fight, or submit. Then we'll see what Americans can really do, and if they are still made of the hard pioneer stuff they used to be.

I hope I won't be dissapointed. A fascist, tinhorn despotic America would be a catastrophe for the whole world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

The Same Ole' Same Ole' Won't work
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on May 19, 2006 2:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
anymore. The Corporations, Old Money and the Theocrats own the place now; they paid good money that they worked hard to steal from us for it and they WON'T JUST LET IT GO! Right now, the Dems and Repubs are either owned by the same masters, or they have no power.

First, people who WANT the damned power or have an agenda - ANY agenda - have the same disease those in power now have and should never hold power. We need a list of qualified people for The People to vote on. We also need to remove the Electoral College, which will necessitate a change in the Constitution. Back when, it wasn't practical to have a true Democracy - too many people to widely spread, too slow communications. Now it CAN be done, if we keep an eye on the process. The fewer people between us and the elected, the fewer people there are to be bought.

Lobbying needs to be gone too, and corporations should have NO RIGHTS, just people. Judges who show an anti-person, pro-corp bias need to be elsewhere than on the bench. Give 'em all brooms so they can be useful.

This system is hacked, busted and FUBAR. We need a new one, and by law, we have the power to make one.

Let's get on it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

The Same Ole' Same Ole' Won't work
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on May 19, 2006 2:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
anymore. The Corporations, Old Money and the Theocrats own the place now; they paid good money that they worked hard to steal from us for it and they WON'T JUST LET IT GO! Right now, the Dems and Repubs are either owned by the same masters, or they have no power.

First, people who WANT the damned power or have an agenda - ANY agenda - have the same disease those in power now have and should never hold power. We need a list of qualified people for The People to vote on. We also need to remove the Electoral College, which will necessitate a change in the Constitution. Back when, it wasn't practical to have a true Democracy - too many people to widely spread, too slow communications. Now it CAN be done, if we keep an eye on the process. The fewer people between us and the elected, the fewer people there are to be bought.

Lobbying needs to be gone too, and corporations should have NO RIGHTS, just people. Judges who show an anti-person, pro-corp bias need to be elsewhere than on the bench. Give 'em all brooms so they can be useful.

This system is hacked, busted and FUBAR. We need a new one, and by law, we have the power to make one.

Let's get on it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How? Posted by: Lincoln fan

Comments are closed-

We had a great candidate in 04!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: antiapathy on May 19, 2006 2:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Matt Taibbi is full of BS. Dennis Kucinich was the one candidate in 04 who had the balls to question the status quo. If you ever saw him give a speech or visited his website you would realize that he was the only Dem who actually wanted to change our corrupt system.

I think Dems in general are all corporate whores. There are a few rare exceptions to the rule, such as Paul Wellstone and Dennis K., but they behaved more like Greens then Dems.

If the progressive movement insists on clinging to tired notions that third parties can't win, then I think we need to back the best Dem we can find. It sure as hell isn't Kerry or Clinton though. Right now Feingold is the ONLY Dem worth even looking at for 08. If he doesn't get the nomination then I'll be voting Green again, and I invite the progressive community to MAKE A STATEMENT by refusing to vote for the corporate lackey who will inevitably win the Democratic nomination.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: We had a great candidate in 04! Posted by: lowcommotion

Comments are closed-

Be smart
[Report this comment]
Posted by: brucem on May 19, 2006 3:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great column, but election day is November 6, not November 2

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Be smart Posted by: Jan Frel

Comments are closed-

err
[Report this comment]
Posted by: daniel1982 on May 19, 2006 3:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Finding Nemo was a good movie.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Feingold/Kerrey would be great in 08
[Report this comment]
Posted by: veive on May 19, 2006 4:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kerrey/Feingold would be just as good but a little harder to elect. What's needed is a kickass, no BS slate with a clearly spelled out "Contract For All America" (That's not a "Contract on America" or "A Great Deal for the Fortunate Few."

That Contract will include things like "We ain't gonna be the Planet Police" and "America will become fiscally viable" and "America the Healthy" and "America for Americans First" and "If America works extra well for you, you can pay a little extra for her" and "Team America," etc. No more YOYO nation (You're on your own), we'll become a WITT (We're in this together) kinda country. Oh, and by the way corporate America, you're gonna start being patriotic again. No more replacing the Stars and Stripes with your quarterly reports. It's time to take back America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Progressive Maniac
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on May 19, 2006 4:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After he assured us that he would hold out to the end but then folding without a hint of backbone I can understand som bad polling number for Kerry. I walked precincts for Kerry in 2004 but would have qualms about voting for him after observing his lack of resolve.

Gore is another matter. He looked pretty foolish in the second debate, having paid too much attention to his consultants, but he seems to have learned a lot from the experience. I think he is worth another shot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Progressive Maniac Posted by: solrev
» RE: Progressive Maniac Posted by: Lindie

Comments are closed-

Polls?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kjadud on May 19, 2006 4:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't believe the poll is accurate. So many polls are designed to manipulate answers and have a small population. I don't trust a poll by the NYT anyway. DO YOU? Think about the recent one by the WP.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Sick of these Polls I Don't Participate in
[Report this comment]
Posted by: nobuko on May 19, 2006 5:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am fed up with Polls given to only 1000 people telling me this is what I'm thinking, and how I would vote!

No, I am not happy with Kerry and Gore for not putting up a fight after their elections was literally STOLEN from them! But God knows if they were up for re-eletion, I would certainly vote for them AGAIN! The People who participated in this Poll are probably the same ones that particpated in the other ones and I don't like it!

When does Polling 1000 people speak for at least the MINIMUM of 200 Million Eligible Voters! Its a Crock of Crap!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

It is easy...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on May 19, 2006 6:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.. their defeats made them completely worthless as candidates.

End of fucking story. There is no more. They lost because they were pansies who lost elections that any candidate with an ounce of compunction would have won in a landslide (ESPECIALLY the worthless KERRY).

Apparently the Democratic party is OBSESSED with pipedreams that will never come true. Gore. Kerry. Obama. Hilary.

Maybe part of why Democrats keep losing has something to do with THE CANDIDATES!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A hypothesis Posted by: Lincoln fan

Comments are closed-

lowcommotion
[Report this comment]
Posted by: lowcommotion on May 19, 2006 7:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both the Republicans and Democrats are opposite sides of the same Corporate politics game. Why are the DNC guns polling so low? It's possible that the voting population (not to be confused with "The American People") are wising up to the fact that the same big money lines the pockets of Members on both sides of the aisle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

voter holliday
[Report this comment]
Posted by: channing on May 19, 2006 8:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
nothing will resolve the apathy and ignorance of the american populace like a voter holliday, subscribed to by every eligible voter in america... it is not a fantasy to incumber the nation of the greatest democratic tradition with a holliday wherewith we enjoy the just fruits of our endeavor to create a government of the people, by the people, and for the people... the candidate matters less than the accountability assigned to the position... we therefore need not address the particular candidate in question until we sanction the act of voting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Your Votes will make no difference
[Report this comment]
Posted by: eyeman on May 19, 2006 10:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At this point in US history, votes will not matter. Platforms will not matter. grassroots activism, may be.
People are too busy to question the government , the corporations and the media.
This voting system is almost useless at this point. Only less than half vote. The winner gets half of the half - about 23 or 24%. half of those are are mostly manipulated - misinformed - brainwashed by CNN and FOX and the rest of the "free" media.
People are being Scared to death of the terrorists, immigrants, lesbians, Michael Moore, AhmadiNejad. They will vote the way CNN and FOX and the other gods want them to.
Dean was popular. The Media Killed him using his scream. 90% of the democratic delegates were antiwar. Kerry did not dare to stand against it.
If democrats come to power. Nothing changes. Democrats are no better than republicans. All in cahoots with large corporations, and the military industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Americans Want CHANGE. All Current Politicans Need To GO.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Joe on May 20, 2006 12:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Typical Democrats bombing make me proud. The American people seem to get it while Democrats & Republicans do not. The fact is Democrats & Republicans have more similarities than differences. Arguring about the two is about as pointless as fighting over a penny. Hopefully other political parties see this as an opportunity to step up and get out there to advertise their platforms. People are tired of the government imposing on them. An imposing that both Democrats & Republicans are responisible for. It's becoming hard to to say "freedom" and "America" with a straight face when people know it isn't true. People are very receptive and ARE LOOKING FOR A REAL, SIGNIFICANT CHANGE. If this country keeps going in the same direction HOPE will dissapear meaning people will just go through the motions. What's the point having HOPE if you can't change anything. What's the point if you can't have more control over your life -- having people legislate how you live your life, having the government knowing your every activity. Wiping the governmental slate clean and starting fresh would go a long way restoring HOPE in the country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

HUGO CAVEZ FOR PRESIDENT OF USA
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kooz on May 20, 2006 5:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The best American leader lives in Venazuela.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

A New "Declaration of Independents"!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: EileenMac on May 20, 2006 5:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We the People...a unique and brilliant concept for ruling a nation. Maybe its time that "We the People" as individuals take back our God-(as you understand him/she/it)given right to rule ourselves.

Where in the Constitution is a political party given more power to govern than an individual American? Where in the Constitution are political parties recognized and authorized to exist as ruling entities equivalent to nobility or priests? Wasnt that the whole point of the American Revolution...to eliminate rule by monarchs and theocrats, who were nothing more than special interest groups who passed the power down from one generation to the next? Why are political party primaries funded by taxpayers' monies, so that these "good ol' boys" clubs/gangs can choose their mascot who can wear their respective "colors" in the form of an "R" or "D" in the ballot box?

Our Constitution declared that "We the People" are each a "party of one", and that an individual, not a group, shall be elected to office. We could start this process of true campaign reform by simply removing party designations from voter registration cards and from the ballot.

Imagine a truly representative House of Representatives, with men and women elected to serve and represent each and every American as an individual, and not as a puppet for the special interest groups that funded a party agenda. Perhaps its time for a new "Declaration of Independents".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

06 Candidates - The Real Deal!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: AlanSmithee on May 20, 2006 6:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Todd Cretien (CA)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Really, Really Hard
[Report this comment]
Posted by: vkobaya on May 20, 2006 7:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's tough. How do we decide what to do? Both Kerry and Gore massacred their Democratic opponents in the primaries and then laid down and were doormats for Bush, obvious sell outs to say nothing of fighting when it was obvious that they had lost by election fraud. Neither was really disturbed to lose to Bush as they identify not with the people of America, but with the wealthy and powerful and with Bush. Hillary and Bill aren't quite in the same class in terms of wealth with either Gore or Kerry, but is obvious neither of them sees anything in common with the real people of this nation. In fact, pretty clear that Bush doesn't regard us as the real United States but rather sees the wealthy and powerful as the only people who matter in this nation. Bush likes to accuse us of wanting class war, but it is clear that, in reality, he knows that war is already on and we know which side he is on. All three want to be president, but make it abundantly clear that they regard Bush as the next best thing. Personally, I thought Kerry's campaign was based on being a better Dubya than Bush.

How many members of the Democratic Party really are representatives of the people? Not Pelosi, nor Obama (that one is very disappointing), nor Reid. Off hand, I am not sure I think any of them other than Kucinich really has any commitment to the people. As for the rest of them, I regard as complicit with the Bush administration, coconspriators, accomplices and accesories to his crimes.

So what do we do? I've been advocating getting rid of all of them, not only the Republicans but a clean sweap, Democrats as well. Start over with a new constitution eliminating one of the most corrupting influences, the electoral college and the winner take all system. Also wipe all legal precedents, especially that evil clerical mistake that made corporations have the legal standing of a citizen.

There are drawbacks to such a solution. Nothing short of a full, shooting civil war (revolution) and the ensuing deaths, probably in the millions, or given the current state of warefare, into the tens of millions, will get the current assos out of power. Given how unstable Bush is, I wouldn't be surprised if he would rather hit the liberal big cities than relinquish power. Then also, do we start from the beginning with a completely new party or try to rebuild the Democratic party from the ground up eliminating all former leaders and movers and shakers from any positions of responsibility in the party. Or do we turn to an existing party as a structure to build upon, Greens, or maybe the Communist Party. Then again, the kind of results that the we saw in Russia and China are not inevitable, but almost everything but inevitable, probably out to 99.9%, okay, at least 90%.

It's pretty clear that democracy as we knew is has seen its day in this nation. I've advocated the most extreme solutions before, but, in truth, would like to see us build from within and salvage this system. Well, as I said, we really need to scrape the constitution and write a new one, without the electoral college and winner take all system. Also need to eliminate the mistake that gave corporations the full rights of citizens without any of the responsibilities. That's a tall order for rebuilding within the current frame of government , sigh, probably not possible without shots being fired, a lot of them. Okay, maybe you and I don't mind dying for the cause, but it is going to cost much more than that, our friends, our neighbors and our own families are also going to die. Is it worth that? I don't know. The reality is that such a war will involve mushroom clouds over American cities. That's a very, very high price to pay. To say that it is, might be as insane as the current vile lunatic sitting in the chair behind the desk in the Oval Office.

Vicki

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

face it
[Report this comment]
Posted by: anotherdeadliar on May 20, 2006 10:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it's time for a third party. the bulk of democrat and gop politicians are shills for a parasitic corporate overclass. i hope these obsolete spectacles remain steadfast in their whorish pandering, only so honest leaders will breakaway from the beast to form a new paradigm. it time for politics of truth and responsibilty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» it's time for a third party Posted by: Lincoln fan

Comments are closed-

Polling Data Misquoted
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rchusid on May 20, 2006 12:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your premise is incorrect and the poll data is misquoted.

The polls which supposedly show Gore and Kerry below Bush are totally different polls than the ones on Bush's approval rating. These polls have a high number of results reported as undecided which is not present in the Presidential approval ratings.

If you look at unfavorable ratings, you get a totally different result. For example, the New York Times/CBS poll gives John Kerry an unfavorable rating of 38%, while most recent polls give George Bush an unfavorable rating in the 60's.

The Democratic Daily discusses this further here and here.

Also note that two recent polls show John Kerry leading George Bush by a wide margin in head to head polls.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Simple language
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Jeffersonista on May 20, 2006 4:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why?

Because they are not real democrats, they are storebought corporate manakins paid to play act and lose to the corporate flunky choice. If they were or are real democrats they would talk about unions, health care, education, local infrastucture, things that matter to people. Instead they feed us a somewhat watered down version of bushs globalization and the elevation of corporations and money over people.

Untill corporate charters are repealed, you will never see a real democrat run.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Follow the Clues
[Report this comment]
Posted by: feller on May 20, 2006 5:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You lay out intriguing posisibilities by referring to hard data. follow your own logic. Is the time for a new Constitution at hand?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Hillary Clinton + Healthcare is a fantasy
[Report this comment]
Posted by: nbrown on May 20, 2006 7:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did the Clintons produce a national healthcare system in the 1990s? No.

Would it be more likely for Hillary to produce it in 2008, while still probably in Iraq, and under weaker economic conditions than we saw in the 1990s? No.

It is less likely than "not" that Clinton would give us healthcare.

Furthermore, Hillary doesn't even have a worker platform. Here are some of the things she has voted for:

- The PATRIOT Act (2001)
- The PATRIOT Act (2006)
- The Iraq war
- The Department of Homeland Security
- REAL ID Act

Hundreds of billions of dollars alone are being pumped into the government's admitted quest for oil. Where do you think that money's coming from? Who do you think is reaping the profits, and who do you think is paying the price?

Hillary Clinton is almost, but not quite, a neocon. Don't think about her party. Just look at her voting record -- that's who she is. A stone's trhow away from PNAC.

BTW, Jan, people like you give Hillary no incentive to vote differently. She knows you're in her pocket and she doesn't have to do anything to earn your vote. And so she won't. Hence, her voting record.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

a diff country had gore or kerry won , you betcha
[Report this comment]
Posted by: fuzypupy on May 20, 2006 8:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Were it not for hanging chads and Diebold machines, there would be a President Gore and/or President Kerry and there would not be a war in Iraq, there would not be 2,500 dead Americans in that war-torn country. There would have been no trillion dollars in tax breaks for the super-rich bankrupting the rest of the country, no NSA spy program. Whether or not there would have been a 9-11 will never be known."

check out evidence to the contrary on the internet .
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6545313046180631815

if we had a real democrat in the white house, we would not have had a 911, cheney took over NORAD 2 weeks before 911, bush's brother was in charge of security for the world trade center and rudy giulliani had a command center in bldg 7.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

but why are we talking what ifs?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: fuzypupy on May 20, 2006 8:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it is more important to get some kind of majority in one or both houses this november. ...
it would be nice if we had great choices but if we do we dont know about them just yet..
clinton could have accomplished a whole lot of good and hillary's health plan was never even known by most people due to the republican controlled houses and the mega corporate money from the k street project

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

We Really Need A New Party
[Report this comment]
Posted by: keenekarl on May 20, 2006 9:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Moderates and progressives are just crying out for a new party that is not beholden to all the special interests - that's what these polls really mean! People have had enough of politics as usual. People want someone who will stand up and stand out - someone who will be willing to separate themselves from their ties to any established party. People will gladly vote for someone willing to sacrifice his/her political future in an established political party for the good of this nation. People are saying: "Anybody but another Republican! Anybody but another Democrat!" People want REAL change, not just more of the same. Will anyone hear the cries?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Divide and Conquer!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: williameon on May 21, 2006 4:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Divide and Conquer

Black
White
Red/Yellow
Brown

Jew
Bible
Koran
Ashram
The Crown

Conservative
Progressive
Reptilian
Hypocrite
Get Down!

Wealthy
Poor
Middle Crass
Homeless
And
More

Terrorize
Torture
Fear
&
WAR!

These are the ties that divide us.
Everything accentuates the difference
Instead of our commonality
Viva la difference!
BU__! SH__!

No!
Get with the program.

This is what they want.
This is the program.
Everything is done for a reason
This is the MATRIX!

Divide and Conquer!
The fool.
For one reason!
WEALTH=POWER!!!!!!

We are all human beings.
Being controlled by wealth.
Thru their surrogate.
MASTER
The MATRIX!

Some positive human ideals are:
Peace, Brotherly Love, Helpfulness, Patience and Cooperation.

Instead of this:
We are being bombarded by:
Billionaire’s:
Stink Tanks
Faux Media
Fascist
Improper:
Proper-gander.

Our common goals:
A livable minimum wage!
Health Care!
An Education!
A Healthy
and
Peaceful
Work place
&
Environment to live in.

A decent job.

Is that too much to ask?
If it is?
The system has failed us.
REBOOT!
REPROGRAM!
GET The Viruses out of the system.
Give the BOOT
To the Corp-pirite shills and politicians

Redefine in modern terms the common positive goals of mankind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Waiting for the Election is too late.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: thepeasants on May 21, 2006 8:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both Gore and Kerry won their elections but rolled over and died. Why would anyone in their right mind vote for someone who betrayed themselves and the millions of people who voted for them by voting for them again? The truth is our system is broken and no longer represents us. We have no choice but to withdraw our consent from this corrupt, morally bankrupt system of government by any means nonviolently. If you wait for the election to make a change, you've already failed. Talk about Democrats and Republicans as if there's a difference is pointless. Aside from a few brave men most of our "leaders" are spineless, self-serving cretins that don't deserve any power. Peace!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Moderate to the Core
[Report this comment]
Posted by: c9542 on May 21, 2006 6:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, the constitution is outdated, but the Democratic party is still viable.

A moderate position, indeed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

I see a lot of posters bitching about how
[Report this comment]
Posted by: MEL810 on May 21, 2006 9:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kerry & Gore rolled over when they were defeated by Bushitas fraud..
But how many PEOPLE that voted for them in this country stood up & protested?
If that travesty had happened in any little insignificant Banana Republic, the people would have revolted. Europeans would have hit the streets and called strikes and forced a national re-vote. But us good old 'Mericans just sat there and took it up the rosy red. And we say we hated the Commies because they force crap down people's throats and are dictators brought in by fraud. DUH!!!
Perhaps if the people who voted for them nationwide (not just in Florida & Ohio) had hit the streets like the immigrants did a few weeks ago or people did enmasse in the sities, things MIGHT have been different.
And WHY didn't the Democratic leadership protest more?
And even after all the fraud, WHY are so many people still voting Republican?
WHY?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Are You a Weiner or a Loser!?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: motherwolfe on May 21, 2006 11:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well if you're the in the DLC run Democratic party you win both prizes. They castrated Gore, Kerry and much of our Congress, and several new potential candidates. We're all crying for backbones and spines and guts and balls?? It was the DLC that told them to BE QUIET AND DON'T ROCK THE BOAT. And that's why we lose over and over.
Everyone wants a champion to lead them in these times. But we've not offered up what it takes to drive people to the polls or to garner substantial numbers of crossover voters.
Calling Gore and Kerry losers?? That's a bit over the top. Almost every online political site repeatedly indicates Feingold and Gore are the top two leading candidates, by the people!
This writer sounds like Chris Mathews or Dick Morris! Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton and more Clinton.
Hillary's allied herself with Rupert and Schumer's'allied with Trump. Thats the DLC. And so very Republican-like.
The DLC forced the Patriot Act through.
We'll decide who our next President will be. Not the DLC.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Try Democracy
[Report this comment]
Posted by: elisabeth on May 23, 2006 7:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reason the polls are so low for the so called democratic presidental contenders is because the democratic party is a top down political organization, just like the republicans. Why don't they ask the registered democrats who they want and go with the person with the most popular support from the party? That is so basic. But, they will ignore the fact that democrats don't want Hilary because she supports the war. The democratic leadership must want a republican to win. As for me, I'm voting Green, because you can count on their platform (ten key values www.gp.org) and that they are not merely popularized by the power of corporate donations on the corporate media. So there is another option.
Don't democrats get it? The reason Bush's poll numbers are so low is because of the war and the spying and the response to Katrina. Find someone with a platform that actually opposes the Bush platform on these issues and viola! you have your 50+%. Democrats in name only do not fool people anymore.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

try democracy
[Report this comment]
Posted by: elisabeth on May 23, 2006 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What’s the big mystery? The democrats are a top down political organization, not bottom up where they actually select the candidate with the most support by registered democrats. If you want to beat Bush, and I know we do, we have to find a candidate that actually is an opposition to the Bush platform. People reject Bush’s war, his response to Katrina and NSA spying with out a warrant, among other things. Try a Green, you can count on their platform of ten key values (www.gp.org) and that they will not rely on corporate donations to create the media illusion of popularity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

There is a way
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Urstrly on May 23, 2006 6:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having just spent four days in Washington at Tikkun's conference for spiritually progressives, I would urge you all to read Michael Lerner's The Left Hand of God. Some 1200 people there rallied to the premise that our nation is in the midst of a great spiritual crisis driven by pursuit of greed and power. Lerner argues, and I agree, that we must force the Democrats (and the Greens and moderate Republicans) to embrace an agenda based not on fear but love and compassion for each other. He argues that we may win elections, but we cannot hold sway without a moral center. To which I say A-men!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Why do you think God sent in Muhammed!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: motherwolfe on May 23, 2006 9:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where in the hell do you guys get the idea that ALL those that AREN'T Right-wingers ARE THE ONES NEEDING THE HELP!
All the groups you cited have more courage and morals in their pinky than the majority of the 'Christian' right.
For a taste of real spirituality fo to the Grand Canyon or stand on Yosemite Valley.
Many of you need to get off this materialistic view of things-'when you don't like something anymore just throw it away and get a new one."
Just remember the percentages:
... the Republicans own about 40% of the vote. (approx)
... to win control OVER THEM you need at least 41% (approx)
... be Green, be Independant whatever
But if you really want to stop ANWR and protect our environment, for starters, then until you have that 41% all your own you better join forces at election time -for the good of the country. So suck in your 'spiritual' egos and get off your little moral pedestals and think about others-for a change.
One of the best Constitutional Professors in the country worries about the excessive powers being hoarded by the White House and would the next President give them back?
My money's on Feingold.

"The Tree of Liberty needs to be watered
from time to time with the blood of patriots."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

If it is Broke, Fix It!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: gar on May 24, 2006 7:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This government wasn't established as a two-party system. I don't think it was established with parties in mind at all.

The founders took a Jeffersonian view, thinking voters would vote their own interests rather than the interests of whoever could afford the most advertisements. Of course, things were different then. For one thing the vote was restricted to literate caucasion male property owners more than 21 years of age.

This restriction shows, despite all rumors to the contrary, this country was never set up as a "democracy" nor is it today. All white males over the age of 21 did not get the vote in this country until about 1818 or there abouts. The first president elected after that was Andrew Jackson. He was viewed by many in upper society at that time as pretty much of a ruffian. Many thought him almost illiterate himself, as well as being a "redneck." He was used as a perfect example of what happens when riff-raff are allowed to vote.

After the Civil War, African-Americans and other non-white males over the age of 21 received the right to vote (at least theoretically.) There followed a period of graft and corruption in government on a scale never before seen in this country. It was so devastating to the South that the area is only now recovering - at least it was recovering until the present regime.

In 1919 women received the vote. In 1920, Warren G. Harding was elected president with an overwhelming 60% of the popular vote. It was said at the time that he "just looked like a president." Harding immediately vetoed all hope of the U.S. joining the League of Nations thus assuring its ultimate failure.

Harding then went on to earn the title of "worst president ever", a title he held until the year 2000. The way this came about is eerily familiar. His downfall is called the Teapot Dome scandal. It involved oil, bribery, the illegal selling of government leases, murder, suicide and congressional hearings where cabinet members refused to testify pleading "national security." It eventually led to Secretary of the Interior Albert Fall, a former senator from New Mexico and a friend of Harding's, being convicted of taking bribes. This earned him the dubious distinction of being the first cabinet member to go to prison for a crime committed while in office.

Harding himself died in 1923 after only two years in office knowing he was in disgrace. There are rumors that his death was not from natural causes.

The last time voting rights were expanded was in 1971 when the legal age was lowered from 21 to 18. In 1972 Richard M. Nixon was re-elected as president with one of the widest margins ever. In 1974, he resigned in scandal and disgrace, famously declaring "I am not a crook."

Don't misunderstand. I am not saying voting rights should not have been expanded. My point is that our governmental system was not designed to be run by representatives elected by uninformed voters. As we have brought less literate and less informed voters into the system, we have experienced more and more chaos and curruption in government.

Again it needs to be recognised that this nation is not, and was not, set up to be a democracy. It was set up to be run by the elite (relatively speaking.) Once we get over our delusion that we live in a democracy and face the reality of the situation we can then look for a fix.

Since I don't believe people should be disenfrancised, the only other alternative I see is to change the system. If we are going to have "mob rule" we must have safeguards to ensure that no one mob is ever given complete power. That is, we must move away from winner-take-all type elections and move to "percentage" elections. That is, if a candidate for president gets 30% of the vote, his "mob" gets 30% of the representation - something similar to the European model.

Just a thought.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

you're right: trust is the issue
[Report this comment]
Posted by: MMiddle on May 24, 2006 9:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From Memphis: We can analyze this to death, but as a practical matter should focus on how trustworthy our candidate seems, how credible he or she is to people who take nothing for granted in keeping food on the table, or rent in the mailbox, or a smile on the boss's face; who know how hard yet critical that can be when skirting the abyss of homelessness and unemployment. From this angle, Kerry was the most catastrophic possible choice - Gore not far behind (remember stories of his behavior as a landlord?) - Hillary (an Illinois Republican, not an Ark. Dem) cut from same cloth. As Schweitzer of Montana has said - these are hard-working people who do not have time to research, analyze and vet the issues: they want someone whom they instinctively trust, whom they can rely on to do that. It's up to the Democratic party to find such a person, decide that he or she deserves that trust (Edwards? Warner? maybe; Harold Ford, no), and then give him (at this point) our all. A good place to start is to see who did or didn't support that bankruptcy bill.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

I was at the DNC Protests 2000...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Burton on May 25, 2006 6:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and was at the receiving end of not a little police brutality. Thanks to the Dems. So will I vote for them? Nope.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
Clownish Far-Right Lawmaker Calls for Another Administration Official to Resign
 
How Fair Are the Criticisms of Rahm Emanuel?
 
The Hollywood Double Standard: Tiger gets cooked, Charlie Sheen gets another free pass
 
Is Greece the New AIG?
 
Confused About Nutrition? Eat Food!
 
Insurer Denies Life-Prolonging Treatment To Five-Year-Old Boy With Cancer
 
Budget Paranoia
 
Why Does the U.S. Assassinate Americans?
 
Jon Stewart: Why Does Sarah Palin Need a Cheat Sheet?
 
We Must Lift the Veil on US Troops in Pakistan
 
MORE 
ALL BLOGS 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
  1. Shadow Elite: How the World's New Power Brokers Are Upending Our Democracy
  2. New Poll Results Are Proof That Republicans Don't Think
  3. White "Savior-Afflicted" Christians, Black Haitian Babies: This Won't End Well
  4. Why I Had to Stop Making Hardcore Porn
  5. Sarah Palin Aims to Bust Up the Republican Party -- And the Tea Party Movement
  6. One Company Thinks They've Created Fast Food With a Conscience -- Are They Right?
  7. The Newest Diet Trend: What Would Jesus Eat?
  8. Could Your Cell Phone End Up Killing You?
  9. Half-Naked Hot Chicks and Beer: The Sexist Guyland of the Super Bowl Beer Commercial
  10. Top 10 Problems with America Killing Its Own Citizens
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
ABOUT DIGG