Pundits are useless.

Chris Hedges seems to be going a bit barmy since he wrote his screed against atheism.

When I left the GOP in 1981 because of their embrace of Falwell and his ilk, I tried the Alaska Dems, but they were way too tight with big oil. After the Exxon Valdez, which Alaska Democratic Party Governors Sheffield and Cowper had a hand in helping set up, I joined the Greens. But I came back to the Democrats after getting tired of fucking beating my head against the wall and never getting anyone but an occasional mayor or dogcatcher elected from the Green party.

I’m super frustrated by Obama and somewhat vexed at our new Sen. Begich, that Blue America helped immensely in the 2008 election. But I’m not ready to leave the Democrats here.

Where would I go?

I really don’t understand why you always show a picture of Palin, she is as relevant as Rush or even Glenn Beck!!!!!

The notion that voting for Ralph Nader or an even more ridiculous figure like Cynthia McKinney is an effective strategy to move the country in a more progressive direction was thoroughly discredited by the 2000 election.

Exactly. Now let’s kick ass in 2010. Blue America rocks!

I am also a socialist, but will vote Democratic, always picking the most progressive candidate, until true progressives can garner more than a trivial percentage of the vote. By voting for Nader or other fringe candidates, you throw away your vote with no opportunity to influence the course of politics. Hedges is an idiot.

The notion that voting for Ralph Nader or an even more ridiculous figure like Cynthia McKinney is an effective strategy to move the country in a more progressive direction was thoroughly discredited by the 2000 election. The idea that Gore and Bush were pretty much the same was a common meme in lefty circles, and it turned out to be deeply misguided, to say the least.

Without making any commentary on whether or not such a thing is a useful strategy; one cannot say definitively that the notion is thoroughly discredited by way of stating that Bush and Gore would be non-trivially distinct.

Obama has been trivially distinguishable from his predecessor on a matter of fronts highlighted here every-single-day. Is Obama significantly distinguishable from Gore? Is Gore’s current tenor significantly shaped by the fact that he didn’t serve Bush’s term in office? Was Gore a voice for increased sanction or increased militarism during the Clinton administration, etc?

My problem with this meme is, what would Nader have done differently? Besides the fact that he can’t win, what if he could? What support does he have in Congress? He wouldn’t have gotten a stimulus package passed; he wouldn’t be closer on health care; he wouldn’t get a climate bill in either house. You get the point.

The only thing Nader can really change unilaterally is the budget, and even that requires Senate approval. You can’t do anything without a party because you have no leverage.

Nader would have been useless. He may have withdrawn troops quicker from Iraq, and not increased troops in Afghanistan, but those two issues are issues I agree with the President on.

Imagine where we’d be in Iraq and Afpak if McCain had been elected.

Nader promised not to campaign actively anywhere that it might make a difference, in 2000. He then campaigned actively in Florida, where his 2% of the state’s votes put the election into the SC. It appears that Bush would have lost, as he should have, if Nader had not insisted on inserting himself into that race on the claim that there was no difference between the candidates Gore and Bush. We owe Nader a lot, it appears; specifically, eight years of war criminals in high office.

one cannot say definitively that the notion is thoroughly discredited by way of stating that Bush and Gore would be non-trivially distinct.

I would like to cite the evidence of The Family Guy episode when Peter and Brian went to the past for one night, changed stuff, and came back to a present in which Al Gore was president. Totally different!

The assertion that Gore and Bush are indistinguishable is easily dismissed by every inch of Bush’s foreign policy following 9/11. Gore would not have invaded Iraq, for one thing. I could go on.

And re Katrina, Gore would have been infinitely better.

As usual though, it’s strong voter turnout that decides elections for Dems, and without the progressive excitement and commitment that generates such turnout, conservadems and centrists and post-partisan navel-gazers will find it hard to hang on to the power they, in theory, have today. Of course, I think McCain-Palin would’ve been much worse than Obama-Biden and of course I wouldn’t ever throw my vote away on a Nadar or a McKinney (and I personally think people who do aren’t thinking it all through very clearly), but campaigning on what you aren’t isn’t really a good path to landslide victories. The real option for most Americans isn’t (or shouldn’t be) to cast their vote for McKinney. It’s to stay home because they’re unmotivated by the choices they see.

The Dems we have in office today need to figure this out.. fast. And, yes, that includes the President.

This would be a great post if it actually dealt with anything Hedges actually said in his post. But thanks for linking to it.

I could not disagree with you more. Elections are won on the margins. If progressive voters stop voting for Dems because of their corporatist tendencies, then either they will have to learn to live with defeat or they will change their ways and start delivering on progressive policies. Gore didn’t lose because of Nader. Gore lost because of Clinton. Just to be clear, I voted for Gore.

Supporting Dems no matter what they do is the surest way to ensure progressive change never happens. I’ll support progressive primary challengers to Dems, but I’m also looking for third parties. Nearly 30 years of disappointment is enough.

If hwe had started building a third party 40 years ago, when the need became apparent, we might have a credible force by now. Obviously Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney isn’t the answer, but neither is continuing to support the Democratic party and expecting it to change into something it’s not. Isn’t this the same “magic pony” strategy we’re always ridiculing.

While we’ll always be a two-party system, that doesn’t mean the two parties will always be the same. If the 10 most progressive Dems in the Senate and the 60 most progressive reps in the House announced that they were joining this third party (but would caucus with the Dems under the right conditions) we’d be halfway there. It’s easy to imagine centrist/corporatist Demos coaslescing with whatever remaining reasonable Republicans there are, while the Republican rump disintegrates into the Tea Party and the mainstream of Democratic political opinion — which support public option, withdrawal from Iraq/Afghanistan, even handedness in Israel=Palestine dispute, etc. — would have progressives they can vote for.

Instead, we are watching our country fall apart, and people are writing to Firedoglake saying “it’d fall apart even faster under the Republicans” as if that’s an actual response to the situation.

“The notion that voting for Ralph Nader or an even more ridiculous figure like Cynthia McKinney is an effective strategy to move the country in a more progressive direction was thoroughly discredited by the 2000 election.”

Hardly! What was discredited by the 2000 election was any notion that this country is not thoroughly corrupt and the Constitution meaningless to the wealthy/powerful. Hedges is right. As long as a large segment of the population continues to think that the Democrats are progressive or liberal it will continue to lurch further to the right and corporatist rule followed by corporate fascism.

The assertion that a vote for anyone but the Democratic candidate is a vote for Republicans is propaganda used to persuade that there can never be anything but the two AWFUL political parties that we currently have and is most likely motivated by a desire to keep it that way.

My wife and daughter correctly saw the counterfeit human being that Obama is and voted for Nader. I am proud of their votes and deeply discouraged that I wasted mine on Obama. I won’t make that mistake again.

The real truth is that a vote for any candidate that is a member of either the Democratic or Republican parties IS a vote for the looting and destruction of this country.

The notion that voting for Ralph Nader or an even more ridiculous figure like Cynthia McKinney is an effective strategy to move the country in a more progressive direction was thoroughly discredited by the 2000 election.

*Groan* We really, really need to look at the reasons that so many voters–5% of those who voted–pulled the lever for Nader instead of Gore.

Does anyone really think that voting for Gore (2000 edition, later editions had significant upgrades) would have moved the country in a significantly more progressive direction that Clinton?

Gore lost to George F’ing W. Bush. Kerry lost to George F’ing W. Bush. They lost because they did not act like Democrats. Obama won because he was running on Change. Now that O is not acting like a Democrat, do you think people will turn out to the polls in 2010 and 2012?

I am ranting because I am very fatigued by the silly argument that Nader lost the 2000 election for the Democrats. Democrats lost for the Democrats by not acting like Democrats. Until that lesson is learned we will not see progressive change in this country.

No pain no gain. What’s Obama’s , or any Democrats for that matter, incentive for voting the way you would like, if your response is to vote for them anyway. Your just going to complain, big deal.

I think Hedges has a good point, and would posit that liberals are indeed the weakest political force known to man. So, to the extent that we are relatively weak and ineffective, I think he’s right.

This isn’t to say that we can’t improve and become more of a force.

The argument that the result of an election is somehow the fault of one of the candidates is nonsense. It’s also an argument that we should not have free and fair elections in this country because we might elect a monster. We have three times in a row and you can only try to blame Ralph Nader for one of them.

The real blame lies with a lot of people, including me in the last election, who have voted for monsters.

Until we elect someone, somewhere who is not a member of the two parties of organized crime, we will see no change.

Seriously, what do progressives do when the party that purports to represent them betrays just about every principle progressives have?

Are the Democrats listening to progressives now about healthcare? What will be the result of the Democrats shunning the obvious will of 60 percent of the people on the PO?

Should we blame Nader for that…or the Green Party? I think we should blame the Democrats for what the Democrats do.

Ralph Nader disagreed with you when he realized he could sway the returns by taking away from votes from Gore, so swore not to campaign where he would make a difference.

You can’t make that case at all; precisely because we don’t have that history to go by. Bush, if you recall, was anti-interventionist and anti-nation-building when he was running for the 2000 election. There’s not much reason to believe that Gore would have been much different than Obama is now, and there’s not exactly mountains of evidence to show that Obama is different from Bush.

spent a huge amount of political capital trying to reform health care

If W were as clever as O, he certainly would have done health care reform as a method of increasing insurance corp profits.

*head explodes from frustration*

Well, there’s mathematical evidence that our electoral system precludes the presence of third parties; in so far as game theory analysis can conclude anything.

The notion that voting for Ralph Nader or an even more ridiculous figure like Cynthia McKinney is an effective strategy to move the country in a more progressive direction was thoroughly discredited by the 2000 election.

Nonsense. If EVERYONE voted for Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney, then such strategies would work. Just because the bandwagon is pointed in the other direction, toward neoliberals such as Dukakis/ Clinton/ Gore/ Kerry/ Obama, doesn’t mean that that direction is in any sense justified. World history since 1980, moreover, has proven me (and Hedges) correct in this regard. The herd mentality keeps the Democratic Party in line with the neoliberals, while Ralph Nader is made to play the role that Emmanuel Goldstein played in George Orwell’s 1984, and with each year the neoliberal stranglehold on American politics deepens. If you like that, support more neoliberals for public office.

Now, last year, neither Nader nor McKinney were viable choices, but this had very little to do with the idea that Obama was in some way superior to McCain, who was going to lose anyway. Nader wasn’t really running with the support of any sort of movement or established political party, and McKinney had a campaign budget that was far too small to support her day-to-day expenses.

Ralph Nader is an ego with legs. He is about as qualified to be the prez as I am. I hope that he doesn’t once again run is 2012. He is just tiresome.

Just don’t tell me that a vote for Nader in ‘08, which was a vote for Palin, was the way to get a more progressive country

Sad but true.

But getting incensed at the crony capitalist Democrats and wishing there was a “real” progressive party in America won’t do much more than make you feel better psychologically and emotionally.

And let’s not forget: Acknowledging how, with respect to most social issues [and the crucial Supreme Court nominees] Demorats are light years ahead of the Republicans [especially the BeckWorld reactionaries today!] it would be the height of recklessness to abandon the Democrats and succeed only in electing more Republicans. The sad fact is that a largely brainwashed public will choose the Repulicans anyway in 2010 if the economy doesn’t improve dramatically. They don’t need our help. Instead, our focus must be on making the Demoratic Party more genuinely progressive and, above all, organizing in the communities to reignite a mass movement among working and middle class folks.

Demorats are light years ahead of the Republicans [especially the BeckWorld reactionaries today!] it would be the height of recklessness to abandon the Democrats and succeed only in electing more Republicans.

That’s why Palin is at the top of the post. If you voted for Nader in 2008, you voted to put her a heartbeat away from the button.

If your choice is between “crazy” and “moderate”, even as a socialist, why would you pick crazy?

Don’t get it.

A year ago I would have been on board with the theory that since the positions of a Democratic president/congress would be notably better then that of a rethuglican one we need to work hard for Dem’s. I’m starting to think otherwise. Historically, the country has been in a drift to the corporatist right no matter who is elected. Progressives seem to gain periodically but it always seems like the institutions mover to the right over time, none-the-less. Compare the “centerist” dem party we now have, with the dems or even the republicans of the 60′s. They have all moved to the right.

So what is the rational, moral, response? I don’t know, but I don’t think it is self evident that a strategy of supporting progressive dems is having any real, long term impact.

Frustrated, puzzled, angry…

Ralph Nader is 75.

As long as the GOP is absolutely insane, the choice is a no-brainer for me. If at some point the Republicans drift back to planet Earth, I will see more of a dilemma.

In a two party system if you always vote for the least bad option you are pushing the Democrats to the right. Risky as it is, Progressives should vote third party if our needs are not being met.

Is Ralph aware of that?

Historically, the country has been in a drift to the corporatist right no matter who is elected.

Right, and of course it’s all Ralph Nader’s fault, so STFU and vote for a neoliberal.

Some things are funny and not at the same time. Like this.

I disagree with everything about this article.

You cannot expect the Democrats to change in anything until they stop taking your vote for granted.

I hope Nader or someone runs against Obama in 2012.

Because if he keeps pissing off progressives liek he is then he derves to lose to Palin. and mayeb another 4 years of the Dark ages will wake the rest of the country up.

I find your unwillingness to vote against Obama to be the problem, nto the solution. You may as well be part of the Veal pen.

Right Fucking On YSD! I encourage all you Nader disparagers out there to go tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_United_States_presidential_candidates,_2008

Go there, read it and weep. His positions will parallel yours almost exactly. He was calling Washington DC “corporate occupied territory” back when most Dems considered such talk “a little too strident.” Many of you may owe your life or the lives of loved ones to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicles Safety Act (1966) that Ralph guided to passage.

Nader has always been for Medicare for All and HAS NEVER WAVERED. He has always supported federal financing for election campaigns.
Nader as President would KNOW how to use the bully pulpit. He WOULD VETO conservative legislation. He would NOT be a corporate lapdog. He has spent his entire life fighting them.

Ralph Nader has done more for the public good than any of us could do in 20 lifetimes.
Dreaming wishfully of Progressive utopia under Gore is as ridiculous as the dreaming for a Progressive Age of Change under Obama was.

Nader tried to persuade the Democratics but they were too busy batting their eyelashes ay the corporate power structure to listen. Stop spitting on the one individual who tried to tell you the truth.

gonna repeat what I said in an earlier thread about this

it is navel gazing – there is nothing in it informed by the actions of passionate committed private citizens engaged in this epic HCR battle, this is all about HedgesWorld. c’mon down and get dirty with us Chris

A vote for Obama/Democrats is a vote for complacency of corruption, toothless solutions, and war.

I don’t think there is much of a difference between Republican/Democrat. I’d rather have a George Bush figure in the white house because that’s the enemy out in the open, and what we really are up against. Obama is Bush in disguise. Stop kidding yourselves. Just hitting you with the truth. Don’t care if you believe me or not.

what about comparing obama to bush, which it seems to me chris was doing. no difference there.

Just don’t tell me that a vote for Nader in ‘08, which was a vote for Palin, was the way to get a more progressive country.

What you fail to point out is that a vote for Obama wasn’t a way to get a more progressive country either. Yes, the Republicans are crazy. But the Democrats are pathetic. This in no way makes the Democrats more “progressive.” Both Republicans and Democrats are equally corporatist. Both are driving us over a cliff. The Democrats just aren’t driving as fast.

Your list of Obama’s supposedly “liberal” policy stands have holes you could sail a fleet through. He has not been progressive on healthcare, labor, or the environment. His healthcare bill is a sellout to insurance, drug, and medical companies. EFCA languishes. And cap and trade weakened even further by the giveaways and extended timelines is only marginally better than useless (and will not avoid major and irreversible climate change).

And his wars in Asia and bailouts are only a “disappointment”? You have put the bar so low it is in the sub-basement.

Sorry, but it’s too risky for me. I have too much “skin in the game” as it is to even give the Republicans a whisper of a chance of reclaiming power.

If that makes me a traitor to the progressive movement, then so be it.

it would be the height of recklessness to abandon the Democrats and succeed only in electing more Republicans.

Exactly how would having a few more Republicans in the Congress make a big difference. It wouldn’t. The Republicans are practically running the show! The Democrats are letting the Republicans make policy and then blaming the Republicans that policy when the Democrats could be crafting a progressive way forward. It’s crazy.

I don’t think there is much of a difference between Republican/Democrat.

You’re not paying attention.

Jed Lewison:

If you think it’s okay to tie this Republican Party, then I suggest you ought to consider raising your standards.

We can’t play for a tie, especially not against these clowns. We’ve got to play to win. And if there’s any Democratic political operatives in DC that don’t get that, they should get out of the game now, because if they don’t, they’re going to get rolled over like it’s 1994.

If that makes me a traitor to the progressive movement, then so be it.

Maybe it makes you another neoliberal.

as a president, he bears more weight, and actualizes democracy bottom-up. you can’t make him president out of context

I thought Hedges wrote an insightful and thought-provoking blog. I especially liked this:

“If you are a ‘least-worst’ voter you don’t want to disturb John Kerry on the war, so you call off the anti-war demonstrations in 2004. You don’t want to disturb Obama because McCain is worse. And every four years both parties get worse. There is no pull…..There is no breaking point. What is the breaking point? The criminal war of aggression in Iraq? The escalation of the war in Afghanistan? Forty-five thousand people dying a year because they can’t afford health insurance? The hollowing out of communities and sending the jobs to fascist and communist regimes overseas that know how to put the workers in their place? There is no breaking point. And when there is no breaking point you do not have a moral compass.” (my bold)

If we keep voting in these non-progressives, we tacitly support legislation like NAFTA or the erosion of our civil liberties or torture. I can’t support these travesties any longer. Just my opinion.

Re Nader, he was the wrong messenger with the right message. While it is true the media caricatured him, it is also true he caricatured himself. He needed to educate not castigate. And he needed to make this about something other than himself, showing up as he did primarily only around Presidential election times. I fault him for not engaging in more party building.

Still he had our political scene nailed years before most of the rest of us did.

Sometimes you have to go backwards to move forwards. I dunno the answer to this really, and struggle with it. Increasingly, I think the answer is to get the corporatists, and so-called conservative democrats out of the party. If that means electoral losses in the short term, so be it.

i thought the more accurate comparison was between gore and obama, or obama and bush. obama favors bush.

Comparing Nader to Emmanuel Goldstein is perfectly apt. The corporate media erases Ralph for 3 and a half years until the Presidential election rolls around. Then they release him to try and draw votes away from the Dem candidate.

Between elections Ralph is writing, giving speeches, directing young activists, lawyers,etc. But you’d never know it from the complete absence of media coverage.

IMO, the problem with the political parties is their incentives. They have 2; be in power & raise money to be in power.

The “raise money” part of it makes 2 constituencies; voters and corporations. And as long as corporations are “people”, “people” who never die and get richer and richer as time passes, that’s where the parties, both of them, are going to look for their money.

That’s the root cause for our problems, and these other arguments about liberal or progressive or 3rd party are around the margins in my opinion.

Needs Repeating:

“Nader has always been for Medicare for All and HAS NEVER WAVERED. He has always supported federal financing for election campaigns.
Nader as President would KNOW how to use the bully pulpit. He WOULD VETO conservative legislation. He would NOT be a corporate lapdog. He has spent his entire life fighting them.

Ralph Nader has done more for the public good than any of us could do in 20 lifetimes.
Dreaming wishfully of Progressive utopia under Gore is as ridiculous as the dreaming for a Progressive Age of Change under Obama was.

Nader tried to persuade the Democratics but they were too busy batting their eyelashes ay the corporate power structure to listen. Stop spitting on the one individual who tried to tell you the truth.”

Right on again.

o/t

is anyone watching the Senate ? did I miss the vote on Nelson’s anti choice amendment ?

Liberals are useless. Only “Movements” are relevant. The U.S. now needs a revolutionary movement before the destruction of working and middle class are complete.

This is just wrong. More Democrats in Florida voted for Bush or not at all than voted for Nader.

I voted for Nader, more than once. And if I continue to vote in this sham ritual that happens every four years, I will continue to vote for candidates who stand for what I believe in. Because that’s the only way my vote will count. Others can throw their vote away voting for candidates like Obama who quite plainly, all along, was no different from Bush. And frankly we would probably have been better off with McCain. Because Hedges is right — nasty and condescending but right. Liberals wouldn’t be rolling over and blinking their eyes and saying but wait, wait, it’s so complicated and hard, if McCain were doing the same things Obama is doing. And Obama is doing the same things McCain would have been doing. Obama has silenced the opposition, who still somehow believe he’s some kind of MLK or LBJ even as he promotes war that MLK detested and resisted, and starts attacking the very Great Society programs that LBJ passed.

And perhaps it might be worth reminding that marvelous Mr. Gore’s running mate was JOSEPH LIEBERMAN.

I simply think that anyone who says that we should just sit on our hands and let Republicans take control again because “that’ll show them Democrats not to take us for granted” and “now we have an opposition who’s out in the open” is taking the term Pyrrhic Victory to a whole new level.

Neoliberalism? Screw neoliberalism. I just see it as a zero-sum game, and one where we can’t afford to use another Republican Administration as a “wake-up call”.

Unfortunately as long as we play the “lesser of the assorted evils game” we will get what we get. The Dems have no reason to pay progressives or lefties any attention at all since they know they automatically have their votes. Can you spell the word “Doormat”? That’s what we are to the Dem power structure – just something to step on when needed.

I know so many folks that have been turned off of voting because of stuff like Obama is doing today. He is alienating a whole new generation of voters and He and the Democratic Party should and will pay for it -

Sorry, but it’s too risky for me. I have too much “skin in the game” as it is to even give the Republicans a whisper of a chance of reclaiming power.

The Democrats are bad. The Republicans are worse. The policies of both are recipes for failure. I understand the tension but your strategy won’t work. If progressives support Democrats and Democrats get elected and fail, this opens the door back up to the Republicans again (because we have not provided them with a progressive alternative). At the least, progressives need to start primarying most Democrats, and where the Democratic candidate is unacceptable, we should pull our support even if it means the loss of a seat. As it is now and until we move into opposition we have exactly zero leverage.

You deserve the Pulitzer for that one!

Maybe it’s just me, but is there any reason why we can’t work at building third parties at the state and local level, and support Democrats in races where it looks like Republicans have a chance to do real damage until there’s a third party that’s strong enough to take people on at the federal level?

The Bush/Cheney years wasn’t going backwards?

I’m in complete agreement with Chris Hedges – it’s really those who believe a vote to stop somebody or prevent something is a vote well cast who are mistaken. A vote is your personal endorsement. By casting a ballot for someone because they are the ‘lesser evil’ and not because they believe in them the electorate is essentially throwing away its votes. Supporting a person who does not share your own beliefs and understanding, and who will be entitled to act in your name, is not representational democracy. Representational democracy depends on voters selecting those who will act in accordance with their wishes when dealing with the problems of the country; representatives who see the world as they do. It is better by far for an individual to vote according to their conscience and thus declare their true beliefs than misrepresent them to deny an even more deplorable candidate. Those who do just that can, and will, be taken for granted and ignored when the elected representatives take office for it wasn’t the candidates’ policies which secured them the election. It was the voters’ animosity towards the opposition – and the same opposition will still be there next election. And the next election after that. Real change can only come about when enough voters gather together to say enough and elect representatives who truly want change themselves. Only by voting for candidates who best share your own ideals can this come about. Truthfully it will take time to build the necessary numbers but the alternative is a disfunctional and corrupt government who play the electorate off against one another in a fixed game where they’re the only choices. The real question is whether or not we are willing to play that game or, like Chris Hedges, we insist on playing by our own rules.

Apparently there is no breaking point. Simply take any Republican (lite,) slap
a DEMOCRAT sticker on him/her and run ‘em. Millions will plod, mesmerized, into the voting booth and pull the lever for DEMOCRAT. Nothin’ changes.

Neoliberalism? Screw neoliberalism.

People who vote for neoliberals like neoliberalism, otherwise they wouldn’t be voting for neoliberals year in and year out. Are you one of them?

Well put, leftown. I wouldn’t even know where to begin with the litany of false promises, corporate give-aways, and petty political games that obama has disappointed with. Living in New Orleans, what I probably find most galling, is his inaction here because it could politically help Bobby Jindal.

We need more than two dominant political parties. I am hoping for a paradigm shift, whereby the teabaggers and progressives split from and weaken the largest corporate sponsored parties.

‘In Florida’s knife-edge ballot, Mr Nader polled more than 95,000 votes, or 2% of the vote.,,Exit polls in Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Washington State and Wisconsin suggested that at least half of Mr Nader’s voters would have voted for Mr Gore had it been a two-way race. ‘
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1012719.stm

George W. Bush beat Al Gore in Florida by 543 votes, far less than 2%.

“Just don’t tell me that a vote for Nader in ‘08, which was a vote for Palin, was the way to get a more progressive country.”

I voted for Nader, so don’t fucking tell me that I voted for Palin simply because you are the one the manufacturers of consent rely on to keep themselves in power.

Bush won by less than 2%

Actually, Bush won by 11% — remember, the final vote was 5 to 4…

Mr. Gore and Mr. Lieberman. Don’t forget Lieberman. Wow, what a ticket!

Did you even read what I wrote, or can’t you understand that not everyone shares your jaded perspective on things?

I am not a neoliberal. I just think that saying we should do what you suggest doing is moronic because it won’t work. Hugh claims we have zero leverage now. So we trade zero leverage for less than zero by backing a third party that is systemically stymied by the entrenched rules?

Vote for the bad to prevent something worse? Hell yes. Because often (especially in states with extremely thin progressive ranks) it’s either vote for bad or not vote at all.

No progressive will win a statewide election in Nevada. That’s not opinion – that’s the reality of the situation here. Progressives are barely tolerated outside of Las Vegas, and Tea Party supporters are fairly thick on the ground here. Democrats have a bare plurality, but non-partisans are a substantial number and they are more center than leftist. The Republican party here is heavily libertarian to boot. There isn’t a lot of room to run left.

You voted for Palin.

You voted for General Dynamics, Goldman Sachs, Wellpoint, etc.

Edit: Tell me what’s to recommend about Lieberman, since you voted for him as well.

Right…snicker.

Good god in heaven. Can’t understand why progressives haven’t, oh never mind.

Last I saw, Al Gore was still alive. And CT would have gotten itself a liberal Dem in the Senate.

Yep.
That’s a good way to put it.

I think Gore gotten us into war too. His vp was Joseph Lieberman and his mentor was Martin Peretz. He was chairman of the dlc at one point. I think Obama’s escalation in Afghanistan also proves mainstream DLCers are complete war hawks, just like Bush. I regret my decision not to vote for Nader and McKinney in light of these facts. As for stem cells, well alot of democrats are prolife extremists too, look at stupack, between slow death and quick death is not a choice I want to make. We need to break from the dlcers. That may mean tuffing it out on some periferal issues in order to get a change in scenery.

Sorry. When it comes to blue dogs I will vote third party or write in from now on, even if it spoils. Not voting for conservatives even if they have ds on their title is the only way to go!

Yes, my vote for Al Gore over George W. Bush was all so misguided because he picked Lieberman as his running mate.

What was I thinking?

I am not a neoliberal.

You seem so sure. Look, this is really your problem with yourself. If you really don’t like neoliberal policy you wouldn’t vote for neoliberals. Maybe it’s that you don’t care enough about it to make it an issue, and so you acquiesce. Me, I think that being screwed by these people year after year is an issue. But that’s just me.

Hugh claims we have zero leverage now. So we trade zero leverage for less than zero by backing a third party that is systemically stymied by the entrenched rules?

There is no “less than zero.” When you have zero leverage there is nowhere to go but up.

Follow the Money: In the 2010 election cycle:
Individual Contributions to Senators $4,675,893
PAC Contributions to Senators: $26,328,766

Individual Contributions to House Representatives: $1,756,970
PAC Contributions to House Representatives: $87,934,770

It does not matter if the person is a saint when first elected, the need for relecction money forces the person to become beholden to the Moany, and then be forced to lie and dissemble to their constituents to get re-elected.

The system corrupts becuse the Money games the system. Our elected representative are trapped, victims, by the system.

As wonderful as Jane, ActBlue & Daily Kos are, its my opinion, and I’m putting my money & effort when my words are, getting progressives elected is nice. Progressives’ ability to maintain a progressive agenda when faced with their re-election costs and this wall of Money is doubtful in the extreme. Buying back our representation is more effective.

Disclaimer: Numbers from OpenSecrets bulk data, unaudited and may contain errors.

I’ve thought about that myself, foucoult. I wonder if it’s possible that many of the teabaggers will split from the corporate sponsors of their movement.
There IS common ground between teabaggers and progressives: bailouts. Teabaggers hate the corporate bailouts, and I’m thinking that’s a start.
BTW, I had the good fortune to vacation in New Orleans in 1998. I loved the place and the people and have never forgotten it.
Obama’s intentional silence harms so many people, and I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Jindal and Obama are friends.

The greens. I don’t like getting beaten up! So I will find a place, but I won’t vote for corrupt democrats. Good dems are fine but the bad ones can lose even if it is to a republican!

“Tea Party supporters are fairly thick on the ground here. Democrats have a bare plurality, but non-partisans are a substantial number and they are more center than leftist.”

Thom Hartman said on his radio program today that Tea Partiers get it, and probably have much in common with the left. He suggested that we should join (infiltrate) the Tea Party movement and co opt it to become progressive, as there are probably many things on which we agree.

I don’t think we have any influence anyway. I’ll vote for good dems but not bad ones not even in the general.

Here’s my view of the Body Politic

I really don’t understand why you always show a picture of Palin, she is as relevant as Rush or even Glenn Beck!!!!!

She’s a bogey to scare us into voting lessor evil even though the dems failed us.

It’s ok. You continue triangulating and voting for the Military industrial complex, for Friedman’s Market Fundamentalism, for the Washington Consensus, Wall Street, Globalization and Consumer Capitalism as we know it (might as well be a climate change denier if you do)

I’ll vote what I believe in.

I think Palin would have quit. She can’t handle being governer of Alaska. Bush didn’t nuke anyone, so I doubt Palin will! So what if she talks meaner to us than Obama, she’ll hire the same neoliberl wonks as Obama and persue the same policies.

And you voted for big business.

I can generalize to.

Hedges speaks the truth.

His point isn’t “Cynthia McKinney will solve all the problems,” but rather, as he says in the column in question:

“At what point do we stop being a doormat?”

And how do you stop being a doormat in this two party system, as a would-be mass movement player, without demonstrating a willingness to walk away from the party?

In an interview a few months back on the truthdig podcast, Hedges made the point that Nader himself has never been driven by any illusions that he would win the WH, least of all in ’08. The point is that progressives will only ever leverage change out of a co-opted corporate-left (w all the sad absurdity that descripn implies) party, if and when you/we/they demonstrate a willingness to bring the whole coalition of which you are a part crashing down should you not be listened to. You have to fight dirty. Savagely. You have to gouge the political eyes out of a Rahm Emanuel, and tear loose the political scalp of a Larry Summers. Make some of these neoliberal assholes go the way of Van Jones. give them reason to hate you, and embrace their hatred.

The Moustache of Understanding famously claimed once to applaud a certain madness he saw in the eyes of Rumsfeld & Co, because that unstable quality met the ante of al quaeda, and so this kind of wildnes can be an asset, particularly in the absence of any better foundation for leverage…Hedges’ socialist voting, aside from being an expression of his accurate preferences for change in the country, is in practical political terms an intra-left twist on that I-might-just-be-a-scorpion-on-yr-froggy-Dem-back dynamic, made sadly necessary because nobody (aside from, let it be noted, “extremists” like Nader…& the fine people at FairVote.org) wants to fight the fight of opening our politics up to third parties.

A report in Politico today (12/7) says that recent polling indicates these whack job “Tea Parties” will draw more votes than the GOP, where they run in tandem. Which is a wild thing to read, but also an object lesson for liberal wimps–in reality, the Teabaggers are all on a big spoiler trip, because these kneejerk gummint-haters don’t have the sense to include Instant Runoff Voting and/or PR (proportional representation) demands as a prerequisite part of their program. That said, they WILL be able to get their grievances aired in a way the Nader wing never has…because too many bailed on Nader in the clutch (2004, when the lesson was fresh in everyone’s mind that largely ignoring a pissed-off, defection-minded left was maybe not the absolute smartest group to ignore). And so the Dems never had to make hard choices between the democratic wing and the corporate wing of the party.

What “we” are doing today–a scare-quoted who’s-this-we-Kimosabe that gets invoked quite appropriately by another whip-smart lefty liberal-basher, Doug Henwood–is very clearly not working. It’s better than if McCain/Palin were in control, but it’s failure all the same. And so what do you do with that?

Why, have a piss on Chris Hedges, that’s what.

The alternative to a borderline-crazy brinksmanship, is what’s happening thus far during ‘Obama time’: the GOP minority and the sold-out blue dog dems are willing to FTW–to allow major systemic failures and assoc’d human suffering to run wild–if they don’t get their way, while the few-and-far-between liberal scrappers cave to leadership pressure. You do the math.

Grayson’s effectively been on board w the no-Pub-OP deal since day one (I should know, he’s my congressman); Weiner withdrew his Single Payer amendment to show he could take one for the team. Sanders isn’t drawing anything like the hard line on a (pathetic and shriveled, trade off of a trade off of a trade off) Public option relative to the hard bargain Traitor Joe and his ilk are on the other side.

And so the bad guys get what they want. Including the reinforcement of a public impression that “liberals” are too weak to govern effectively.

EFCA? Who wants to bet that goes nowhere, even with the already-abandoned card-check provision. They couldn’t get a goddamn 33% ceiling on credit card interst rates, in the middle of a greed-triggered massive recession!

Cap and trade? Please. And NAFTA, Glass Steagall repeal…anybody holding their breath for a big Green New Deal jobs program? Hell no, but we have time and money for more warring.

You want to talk about where my politics and FireDogLake’s part ways, it’s when FDL decides to piss on Hedges for telling Democrats an uncomfortable set of truths. At some point you have to convincingly face down this argument that support for ‘lesser-evilist’ leadership–even when brilliantly branded–is just not getting the job done. Face it down, or face up to what it’s telling you.

Bush, if you recall, was anti-interventionist and anti-nation-building when he was running for the 2000 election.

I remember Bush saying those things, and I have people who can confirm that I said repeatedly throughout 2000 that we’d have a Second Cold War or worse if he got elected.

Bush and the neocons almost got their Second Cold War with China when one of our planes went down.

Then 9/11 happened.

I’m not a conspiracy theorist because I don’t like speculating w/o enough info, but…

Man I suck when I type fast don’t I?

Blue Texan has countered none of my points tho, because he actually can’t.

I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Jindal and Obama are friends.

Jindal and Obama do seem to have the same sort of glib personalities, and Obama is buds with the Bush family!

‘Not nearly dirty enough’ is I think Hedges’ point.

Might be fair to say to deduce that the best thing about FDL in my view, the primary-the-bastards noisemaking, in “HedgesWorld” won’t turn out to have a bite to match the bark.

At which point…who’s the navelgazer?

The intentional silence is harmful, but what is far worse is his failure to stand up for New Orleans residents in demanding that the Army Corps of Engineers build an adequate pumping system and help restore our coastal wetlands that they and oil companies vastly undermined.

You want to play dirty?

Here’s dirty for you: doing what you suggest WILL KILL ME, as surely as stepping out into traffic would kill me. I cannot physically survive another Republican Administration – I’m barely surviving in a state with an idiot Republican in charge thanks to what he wants to do to my livelihood and my health care. And you want to put them back in charge as an object lesson? Are you out of your goddamned mind?

And you know what? You, and anyone else, who doesn’t see why I have a BIG problem with that can kindly and oh-so-sweetly [Edited by Mod.].

I guess I can fuck off then.

You really think anything is changing right now? Anything at all?

If you can’t see how both parties are just tools of corporate masters, then you’re worthless to the cause. The Democrats never have to try and earn your vote ever again. They can Literally do everything you hate and get away with it because they don’t have R next to thier name.

If you’re cool being a sheep like that you have my pity, but you won’t get my support.

Democrats who don’t support national health care kill too. Look at Bredesen and tenncare!

When reflecting upon the 2000 election, and a belief some may have had at the time that there wasn’t that much difference between the two tickets, let’s remember how the Democratic nominees defined that difference.
Gore, in the debates, defined it as being a choice between “more school testing” and “even more school testing.”
Lieberman, in his debate, defined it as no substantial difference at all.

Silly voters, listening.

A R. will take that bull frog slam it on the barbie and be done in no time flat.
A D. will put that bull frog into a pot of water and slowly turn up the heat.

Dead is what you will be either way.

When deciding to cast your ‘freedom’ vote for the lesser of the two evils, you realize that you become only [Edited] than the stupid fuckwad who votes for an R., agree?

[Mod Note: Let's not go with quite so volatile language. You might actually convince someone to your side without insulting them]

Someone way back when asked what Nader would have done differently. My favorite anecdote from 2000 is when Fox News asked Nader what he would have done after 9-11, and he said if he had been President 9-11 never would have happened. The Fox host and all his viewers are thinking, Yeah, Mr. Tough Guy, you were gonna scare off the Muslim hordes. “Why?” he asked. Nader replied that his transportation safety task force had been recommending locking cabin doors for more than a decade, and the Clinton Administration and both Bush Administration’s had consistently rejected it as too costly.

What, maybe two hundred bucks per plane? It’s a fucking door, and no one has a battering ram on board. One ten-dollar surcharge per ticket on a single flight would have covered it.

That, in a nutshell, is what’s wrong with the two party system and why we need a new one. Republicans: Launch wars everywhere and expand defense spending humongously. Democrats: Launch wars judiciously and expand defense spending half-humongously. Nader: Locking cabin doors.

Pally, you don’t know me. So don’t try that dime store psychology on me. It isn’t going t fly.

And calling me a sheep? How original. How droll.

…you know, I’m not going to respond to that.

Because at this point the only response I want to give would probably get me banned.

A R. will take that bull frog slam it on the barbie and be done in no time flat.
A D. will put that bull frog into a pot of water and slowly turn up the heat.
Dead is what you will be either way.

Well said.

So your measure for supporting a politician is to be the slightly less “insane” amongst the others? How’s that going to produce anything other than “insane” outcomes?

We’re going forwards with Obama?

The Democratic party needs to purge the corporatists.

Can someone point me in the direction of the history books where one can assess the merits and efficacy of Al Gore as President from 2000-2008?

This entire spurious argument relies very heavily on the idea that neoliberalism is altogether different from neoconservatism. It isn’t. They’re both pro-corporate, military-interventionist, and anti-populist frameworks. Their only real significant difference is that neoconservatism is promoted through self-victimization, and neoliberalism is promoted by projected-victimization.

I agree 100%. I’m sick of pretending this year (2002, 2004, 2006 (woohoo the house (or so we thought)) and then finally “control” in 2008. How many more years (better to think in terms of generations probably) before we get rid of all the bad democrats..that’s right..it will NEVER happen. They compete for the same corporate pie the GOP competes for (just slightly different slices) and NEITHER give 2 shits about the American people…that’s why I’m ready to let Sarah Freak’n Palin or whoever have at it and destroy it utterly, maybe then we get it together because if this is what you think I worked/gave money and spent time, I didn’t and I won’t EVER again..

Greed has replaced morals as the social norm in this country…

I admit to being one of those “lesser of 2 evils” voters (I feel like I’m at a recovery meeting now). I did vote for Nader the very first time he ran (against Clinton’s 2d term), but I hated Bush so much that I voted for Gore & Kerry. And then I hated Palin so much that I voted for Obama (who I had serious questions about, but…).

I’m ready to say now: so what’s the next step?

As an old DFH, I feel like we lefties have been having this same conversation ad nauseum since the 1960s (well, that’s only as far back as I go), and where are we now? No-effen-where and worse off for it.

So, what’s next? I agree that we do have some “common cause” with teabaggers, but sadly, they get mainly riled up about the fringe issues like gays & abortions & whether you’re “Christian” enough for them that I’m not sure (willing to try but dubious) whether the twain can ever meet.

I think lefties see much more clearly the hows & whys of the great corporate rip-off. My direct experience with teabaggers (know quite a few) is that they *seem* to live in an altered state, plus they are awfully intent on infantalizing & victimizing themselves and blaming the left for everything (their churches have done a good job with brainwashing them to blame someone else, aka satan, for all the ills of the world & to take next to no personal responsibility for anything; thinking for yourself is verboten). Still, I suppose it’s worth a shot.

But HOW do we do it? And really, HOW do we tear them away from BeckRushetal? Most teabaggers are incredibly addicted to the rightwing noise machine – as in: it’s a real addiction like heroin or oxycontin. My direct experience is that they physically expose themselves to rightwing radio or tv for many hours per day, every day. HOW to get them pay attention to anything else? Let’s face it: they ARE passionate, but they’re being FUNDED to attend their astro-turf rallies. If it wasn’t all being organized for them by the Kochs, the Scaifes, & Glenn Beck & Fake Noise, I’m really not sure that we’d see that much feet-on-the-ground protest, like we have this year.

But again: I’m willing to give it a shot.

HOW? WHEN? WHAT IS STEP ONE?

I’ll think about answers, too, but if anyone else out there has any good suggestions, then I, at least, am really open to ideas.

I think it’s too late for Nadar, and from my own personal perspective, I think he really stunk in the last campaign, although I always agreed with the notion that both parties were corporate whores & all that.

. . . There is no breaking point. And when there is no breaking point you do not have a moral compass.

You also have no influence in negotiating either, because evryone else knows that you will always compromise away what you ask for.

I agree with the socialist side of the discussion here. To me the judicious middle ground here is that in a two way race you vote for the Dem, but at the same time you work toward the third party. I agree that the whole Nader in 2000 scenario is disastrous. So what’s a progressive to do?

Across the board, Obama’s obviously not a progressive. We’re still grieving over that. But it’s time now to pick ourselves up and dust ourselves off. I think the most promising trend is the current Left-Right Convergence. 2 wonderful examples right now: 1) Grayson-Paul v. the Fed and 2) Sanders and Bunning et al. (yes, crazy Bunning!!!) w their hold on Bernanke. I think that’s the direction, and it’s very promising long-term, imho.

P.S. Chris Hedges is great and well worth reading. A welcome part of the debate, even if he does go over the top sometimes…

What makes George W. Bush (or Palin) more qualified to run the country than Ralph Nader? That’s what I would like to know. George W. Bush!

Shouldn’t we be voting for a party that has a particular platform that conforms to our beliefs?

This entire spurious argument relies very heavily on the idea that neoliberalism is altogether different from neoconservatism.

A cursory glance of leading economic indicators (poverty, middle class income, etc.) during the years 1993-2001 and 2001-2009 disprove this theory pretty convincingly.

Thom Hartman is right.

Fantastic.

i’m very sorry to say that obama’s and the dems behaviour since they assumed ‘control’ is utterly disappointing and support a thesis central to many who support ‘alternative’ candidates e.g. McKinney or Nader: we live in a single-party corporatist system – controlled by the monied elite who pore money into elections to buy the politicians who will then do anything for their masters in order to stay in power and eating out of the lobby trough.

I hear you & agree. But the Dems do present a *platform* that conforms with our beliefs; they just don’t execute once in office. Therein lies the difference.

And yes, Nadar would’ve been better than Bush as Pres (just to answer your question for the heck of it), but in my humble opinion, I think Nadar would’ve still be stymied by the farts in Congress.

So it’s more than just who is Prez, but I know everyone here gets that. Just saying.

You might actually convince someone to your side without insulting them

The notion that voting for Ralph Nader or an even more ridiculous figure like Cynthia McKinney is an effective strategy to move the country in a more progressive direction was thoroughly discredited by the 2000 election.

Great. One thing about an ad hominem argument; it is so much better than an insult, and it works so much better to illustrate the merits of your own position.

I voted for Cynthia McKinney because she was ridiculous enough to ask tough questions and weather the withering harassment and scurrilous criticism from corporate media (and from her own party). She didn’t have the budget or the disposition to turn herself over to professional image-makers. Her lack of money may have had something to do with her not being considered a reliable servant of corporate interests (and other centers of entrenched power).

As the English were wont to say, though, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The results of Obama’s time in office– and the Democrats’ control of both houses of Congress– speak for themselves. We can opt for better at the polls, or we can continue to act like suckers and cowards. At least the idiotic tea baggers have the spine to stand up for something. I agree with Chris Hedges: too many liberals are not even worth that much.

A cursory glance of leading economic indicators (poverty, middle class income, etc.) during the years 1993-2001 and 2001-2009 disprove this theory pretty convincingly.

So it is your position then that neoliberalism differs from neoconservatism due to the development of the internet, and the commoditization phase of microcomputing?

The policies during those periods were the same; liberalize capital flows, loosen monetary policy, broaden financial deregulation, and incentivize consumer spending.

“Punt the pundits!”

Cool liberals like Blue Texan and many of those commenting on this post apparently think that voting is “an effective strategy to move the country in a more progressive direction.” Too bad some of us think that there are a lot more important things to do. As for voting, do you really believe that we should not vote for the person or persons whose values most coincide with ours? I suppose you also oppose other acts of conscience because they are not “effective,” like civil disobedience, tax resistance or fasting, to mention a few. Calling Cynthia McKinney “an even more ridiculous figure” than Ralph Nader confirms that you are a Texan, alright. And I guess the “Blue” comes from Blue Dog. A vote for Nader in ’08 was a vote for Palin. Talk about ridiculous. But as for confronting Wall Street and the Pentagon, you are “disappointed.” Obama surrounds himself with Wall Street people and Bush’s war strategy advisors with the result being a world financial crisis and you are “disappointed.” But you are happy with the stimulus bill, overturning stem-cell policy and “acknowledging” (but not doing anything about) the seriousness of climate change. Oh, and Obama has spent a huge amount of political capital trying to reform health care but he won’t even use his bully pulpit for a robust public option. You can follow your guy down the road of more fascism if you want to. But how about a little respect for people who see things differently? Blue Crow at 16 and Evelyn at 60 have it right.

So it is your position then that neoliberalism differs from neoconservatism due to the development of the internet, and the commoditization phase of microcomputing?

Oooh I like that — that’s sharp.

This is, of course, the essence of the ‘problem’ of progressivism in the US.

The crux of the matter here is that more ‘moderate’ lefties don’t see a problem with the corporate takeover of the heart, soul, and culture of the US. Either you see it that way or you don’t, and if you don’t, you’re already lost to progressivism. You’re not really a progressive if you can justify – in your mind or in print – the bankster bailout, for instance.

This means that Barack Obama is not a progressive, by definition.

So quit pretending that he is. Hedges gets it exactly right: Those of us who know the score are not surprised in the least that Obama has fulfilled his campaign promises. Is he better than McCain or Palin? Absofrickinlutely. But neither he nor the Democratic leadership have progressive ideals. They have the *opposite* of progressive ideals.

Now, as Blue Texan’s fallacies: “The idea that Gore and Bush were pretty much the same was a common meme in lefty circles, and it turned out to be deeply misguided, to say the least. Does Hedges really believe the country would look no different today if the Supreme Court hadn’t appointed Bush in 2000? Because I think he’s wrong.”

Interestingly, Hedges doesn’t make this argument. Blue Texan (whose work here and on Dog Canyon I greatly enjoy) is making a straw man argument.

Much has been said of Obama’s ‘veal pen’ of lefty organizations which he keeps locked up tight in order to gain legitimacy. One could also argue that ham-fisted arguments such as Blue Texan’s straw man fallacy are an attempt to keep real progressives in another type of veal pen. This would be a veal pen where strategy is more important than message, where one’s ideals and integrity are measured only by the venality of Republican power. That is, if you say something bad about bad Democrats or about bad Democratic-party policy… Or if you dare criticize a Democrat as not being progressive enough, then….. GEORGE W. BUSH!! RALPH NADER GAVE BUSH THE PRESIDENCY!!! DIVERSITY IN THOUGHT AND ACTION WILL DESTROY US!!!

I suggest Blue Texan take a chill pill and consider whether criticizing a progressive over stating the plain truth is really all that good a way to create strength in the community of the left. After all, Blue Texan has a problem with a splintered left, and blames Nader as the cause. Perhaps BT could start entertaining the notion that excluding progressives for voting their conscience is counterproductive.

Stop reflexively hammering on your allies.

The policies during those periods were the same…

Bush raised taxes? Missed that one.

You really want a purity test? That’s where we’re gonna go?

You throw everyone out who doesn’t toe your line 100% (for example, I support action in Afghanistan so I’m out just on that), then you won’t have many folks remaining.

How about we wait and see what Obama signs or don’t sign for HCR, before we gore the ox and skin it and eat it?

We MIGHT need that ox to haul our shit somewhere!!!!

Bush was anti interventionist? *SHOCK*

Rlly!?!! SRSLY?!?!?

That’s about as simple, neat and clean it can be put.

And in the meantime, we work to reform the Dem’s and try and force it all back left, so we CAN find the center once again . . . then we work on more progressive issues. Time. Takes time.

Yep. Standing on the perception that it wasn’t the role or responsibility of the U.S. to get itself involved in things like Kosovo and Somalia. When he flipped the switch after 9/11, it was quite a surprise to a lot of conservatives.

Where would you put the bar OR the basement had McCain/Palin won?

Sorry. So, your position is that neoliberalism differs from neoconservatism due to the development of the internet, the commoditization phase of microcomputing, and a 1 to 4 percent change to the highest marginal tax bracket?

Obama Administration OKs Oil Drilling in Arctic off Alaska

by Erika Bolstad

WASHINGTON — The Interior Department today gave the go-ahead for Shell Oil to begin drilling three exploratory wells in the Chukchi Sea, a move that opens the door for production in a new region of the Arctic.

I don’t want a purity test. I want definition and shape and form. I want you and me to both see that we have more in common than we have different.

The central fact of American life in 2009 is that corporations rule us. Our national power structure is such that no progressive agenda can be accomplished without addressing this simple, obvious, absolute fact.

Viz Obama’s health care: It went from single payer to insurance company handout in less than a year. And that’s because we are ruled by corporate interests.

If you call yourself a progressive, you must be aware that your politics are contrary to corporate interests. That’s just how it is. If you call yourself a progressive and don’t think that’s the case, then you are, as per the title of BT’s ‘blog post, ‘useless.’

It’s not a purity test. It’s a measure of awareness.

Nader et al are real progressives in that they are confronting this situation head-on. They are ineffective because liberals like BT go around smacking them down without listening to what they have to say. This means that you guys are spending all your time smacking down potential allies, rather than allying with them. And that, my friend, is why neither camp moves forward.

And that is my message: LET’S MOVE FORWARD TOGETHER.

If you really think Clinton/Gore’s economic policies were no different than Bush/Cheney’s, I’m afraid I can’t help you.

Cap and Fade

by James Hansen

AT the international climate talks in Copenhagen, President Obama is expected to announce that the United States wants to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to about 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. But at the heart of his plan is cap and trade, a market-based approach that has been widely praised but does little to slow global warming or reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. It merely allows polluters and Wall Street traders to fleece the public out of billions of dollars.

Nader wouldn’t have gone there!

Obama Administration OKs Oil Drilling in Arctic off Alaska

by Erika Bolstad

WASHINGTON — The Interior Department today gave the go-ahead for Shell Oil to begin drilling three exploratory wells in the Chukchi Sea, a move that opens the door for production in a new region of the Arctic.

“This is progress,” said Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the top Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural

Nader wouldn’t have gone there!

There’s no helping you then.

Clinton and Bush had very little to do with economic policy. It was all Greenspan. They both just rubber stamped what he told them.

the only difference is Bush had a few more tax cuts, but other than the the overall shape of the economy (which was massive deregulation) did not change.

So not only are you helping big business by refusing to not vote for the dem, you’re helping spread that propaganda.

You sir, really are the problem.

1) What’s your plan.
2) Who are your people.
3) Where’s the money.

The rest is impassioned rhetoric and keyboard posturing. I think Mz. Hamsher’s take on the Single Payer issue speaks volumes for many issues.

No plan, no people, no money? No go.

yup, killing the future of America will have been accomplished by a
R.R.D.R.D rally.

Obama being the closer here.

yes, liberals are useless. voting for the lesser of two evils still is voting for evil.

and the BS about Nader handing 2000 to Bush needs to be called out every single time it is spouted: http://www.prorev.com/green2000.htm

Uh, given that PNAC was built and writ before the 2000 Election Campaign, and IT outlined a global strategy built on DIRECT INTERVENTIONIST POLICIES, and given Bush Junior WAS the pick from get go long before the GOP Primary was over . . . . I think only the blind and uninformed could make a case Bush was EVER non interventionist. And I accredit you with being neither BLIND, nor uninformed . . *G*

I don’t get why his base or even independent cnservatives of ANY ilk would have been in SUPPORT of non interventionism, either.

So who was Bush Jr campaigning TO on a non interventionist platform, which was obviously a lie and falsehood, to begin with?

Who did he fool?

Right on.

What’s the date on that? Is that TODAY? 12/7/09?

Of course they weren’t the same. But they beat Bush/Cheney to the punch on a lot of things Bush/Cheney would’ve done.

Have you ever heard of the high-dollar policy that offshored millions of American jobs? It started with Bob Rubin. (Google search “high dollar dean baker”)
NAFTA + WTO expansion?
Repeal of Glass-Steagall and legalizing opaque derivative transactions?
Welfare “reform”?

Millions of people coming out of poverty during the Clinton years = “propaganda.”

Uh-huh.

I wonder how many here have actually read Rebuilding America’s Defenses, the opus of PNAC. It’s only 90+ pdf pages. Shrub/Cheney followed the blueprint laid out in Rebuilding almost to a tee. The list of “participants” to the document packed the Shrub administration.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Well, you could start helping me by pointing out how they were different.

Trade, monetary, and fiscal policy were all essentially congruent. Save for the moderate attempt at budget balancing (something that was partly a sleight-of-hand maneuver); the rest remained thoroughly entangled. I’m more than willing to be persuaded that trade, monetary, and fiscal policy were significantly altered from Bush through Clinton through Bush II. I’ve had a really hard time making that argument myself, but perhaps you’re more resourceful and learned than I am on the subject. So, I’m asking humbly; help me.

I’m of the opinion that the President has essentially no significant bearing on the economy in the first place, so it’s not a particularly strong position to point to those indicators as a measured difference in policy. The problem is that President’s have long taken the credit for good economic times, and thus get blamed for the bad ones too. Fiscal policy doesn’t start in the Executive, and monetary policy is independent of the Executive and the Legislature. However, despite all that; I still don’t think you can sufficiently disambiguate the Clinton from the Bush years on those fronts.

The same subset of people who believed that Obama was a reformer; those who want to believe.

I would add that Rebuilding was only released to the public when word of its existence was leaked to the press.

“The list of signatories to the document packed the Shrub administration.”

And many still adorn the political landscape of both neoconservatism and neoliberalism, both of which are interventionist, exploitative and deeply embedded and imbued by, with and to deregulation, centralization, monopolization, militarization and the upwards transfer of the public’s wealth.

Along with consolidation of power in government and in business into the hands of the 1%.

THIS is what any dem faces, what any prog faces, what any lib faces . . . THIS is what is opposed to change.

Liberals are NOT useless, neither is Obama . . . . the fight is great, and large.

The struggle is daily. The change is slow (excepting acts of god, mother nature, UNEXPECTED war, or complete economic colllapse overnight).

The change is slow, it’s hard work. Not voting to punish neolib dem’s and hand it to neocon Pugs or worse is batshit insane.

I’ve liked Chris Hedges on foreign military affairs for a few years now.

As Blue Texan captures him regarding political affairs, Hedges done gone batshit crazy.

*G*

Oh, how cute. Another two-party-tard screed implying that voting for a third party is worse than staying home. Yeah, for the establishment, of which you, Blue Texan, are apparently proud to be a part.

Kristol at one time was asked what would happen if the neocons were discredited. His reply was that he would then call himself a neoliberal. Really not a lot of difference between the two. They’re both imperialists. We’re in Irak and Afghanistan, and have military bases all over the world, to maintain and expand the American empire. Like every empire before us we will reap the whirlwind.

SD, more food for fodder, you likely have this linky, others, maybe not:

One Of My Bookmarked PNAC Reads.

Within it, other links to them all.

Bush as a non-interventionist? *HAH* ;-)

Do you know of a viable third party up and running?

Now now, Nathan . . . WHO did he run that game at? Name them?

And I’m old, and my memory is not so good . . . I don’t even RECALL Bush Jr. being non-interventionist, or running on that . . . but that’s MY memory . . .

WHAT TARGET DEMO was he aiming at with this non-interventionism?

The change is slow (excepting acts of god, mother nature, UNEXPECTED war, or complete economic colllapse overnight).

The change is slow, it’s hard work. Not voting to punish neolib dem’s and hand it to neocon Pugs or worse is batshit insane.

If you actually believe the parenthetical statement, and you believe that handing it to neocons significantly increases the likelihood of those things, then electing neocons is actually the fastest route to swift and significant progress; in the wake of their mess.

That is my single biggest problem with Obama. His election utterly wasted an opportunity for significant change of course; the mandate of his campaign. The perceived crisis of the Bush era has been squandered on a return to Clintonian-liberalism, or Reagan-democrats.

Show me your people.
Show me your numbers.
Show me your money.
Show me you can win.

If not, it’s a waste under the present system, which we all agree, needs to be reformed. And it hands the power back to the GOP, and I DARE you to tell me they are not worse for the masses than the Dem’s.

And we can all agree, to reform the present system . . . THAT is a HUGE and monumental task, that’s not gonna happen overnight no matter WHO runs for The Greens, Or The Socialists. And no, Obama can’t change it all either.

Mz. Hansher has nailed it. It’s Single Payer Itis. Like Deja Vu, all over again.

The fruits of that empire’s labors are sour, and rotting daily, agreed.

I just don’t see it like that.

I see it as we have the best we can get at this time under the present system.

And we have more hope for the future than in the past 30 years.

And even if you, and others DO believe Obama is as Satanic as Bush’s, or Palin/McCain, then you can just sit back and gloat as it all falls to shit under HIS leadership and we can all do NOTHING, including staying at home in 2010 and hand it all back to the GOP to further hasten our imminent and eminent demise as a nation.

Commander Oddball would be greatly disappointed in ALL us disjointed progs and libs, methinks, for our doomsday glums.

Who? A national audience of conservatives who weren’t all that thrilled with the utilization of the military under Clinton/Gore as a force for nation-building.

Please excuse the terrible music in that clip.

I don’t think Obama is some kind of evil caricature; though I don’t think Bush is either. I do think that Obama is as antithetical to restoration of civil-liberties, and to a reduction in militarism, as Bush was. I should say I know that, not simply think it. It’s borne out in his embrace and extension of policies to that effect.

That Obama is a better salesman to the left, and Bush a better salesman to the right, is not much of a statement on the differences in course that each one pursued.

Then you don’t actually think that swift and corrective action is possible uniquely at the precipice of crisis, or you don’t think that neocons will push us to that precipice any faster.

I’ve constructed a dichotomy based on your language, and you’ll have to reject one of your premises to maintain your dependent conclusion.

I’m surprised by this post; it seemed to me that firedoglake, of all the blogs, was deeply aware of the way the two party system is destroying the USA. Both parties are beyond corrupt.

The Democratic and Republican parties have BOTH been exposed as parties at the service of corporations. Nader and McKinney (who, by the way, is distinctly non-ridiculous) are true progressives, not socialists.

This is tired, soft liberal thinking. The democratic party is irrelevant, so are republicans. The USA is becoming irrelevant. It is like watching Rome burn, slowly, and with torture. Your only hope are people like Nader but you’re too Obama-blind to see it.

Very sad.

By the way, I just read Chris Hedges’ column at truthdig.com, and as a grad student who has been at the kind of parties Hedges talks about, I second third and fourth what he says.

I highly recommend Hedges’ piece.

Wake up Blue Texan!!!

Show me your people.
Show me your numbers.
Show me your money.
Show me you can win.

If not, it’s a waste under the present system, which we all agree, needs to be reformed. And it hands the power back to the GOP, and I DARE you to tell me they are not worse for the masses than the Dem’s.

The GOP misbehaves with impunity because the Democrats let them, e.g. Nancy “Impeachment Is Off The Table” Pelosi. Even now, with minorities in both houses of Congress, they’re being blamed for the crumbling of health care reform.

I voted for Nader in 2000, but I was excoriated for it by all the liberals around me. I still stand by my decision and haven’t regretted it for a second. Ralph Nader played as much a role in my political education (high school in the 80′s) as Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn. I remember arguing with liberals at the time, almost all of them would say they agreed with Nader, but just couldn’t vote for him for whatever reason. And I would reply to them how sad it was that the one time a candidate came along who actually represented them, a very rare occurrence in any American’s lifetime, that they couldn’t bring themselves to vote for him/her. Following their logic was just too perverted and anti-common sense for me. There are plenty of reasons why I vote one way or another, but I try to vote for candidates I actually like when I have the chance. 2000 was the first and only time in my life where I actually felt like I voted for a candidate I liked.

Hedges is right. Liberals are useless.

His question about where is the breaking point is valid.

If we continue to support the Dems after all that has happened exactly what will it take to finally say; now they’ve gone too far. There appears to be no such point which is exactly why Hedges is right. Liberals support blue dogs who are not even liberal let alone progressive!

But we’d have McCain as President and where would we be then? Not much farther away than we are right now.

We need an organization (not a third party) that is autonomous of the DNC and after talks with the DNC and consultations among ourselves we will make decisions that sometimes support Dems, or sometimes supports our own Independent candidates.

I sense that you have a particular candidate in mind for the top of the ticket.
If this is the case, don’t keep us in suspense.

And welcome to the Lake.

he understands that only nader would have been for the people the lower and middle classes.

few in america have a clue what he is talking about.

most americans are imperialists including most liberals all repubs and even a few progressives.

almost all are capitalists and capitalism is one of the most destructive economic systems ever invented by humankind.

example mega profits off the sick and needy.

nothing I say will have a dent in a country with an imperialist paradigm.

we now have generations of americans conditioned to have a materialistic and imperialistic paradigm.

who could have convinced the germans they were heading straight for destruction in the 30′s

I’m way too late to this conversation but for all the times I’ve linked to you, dude, you are really full of shit on this one.

I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. I did so because I publicly proclaimed in 1988 that I’d never vote for the anti-Choice Gore who was, for all practical purposes, a blue dog Democrat. I hung out with Naderites and Democrats who voted for Nader but never, not once, not ever did I hear any of them say Gore = Bush.

Stop telling that lie. Some folks may have believed that, but I sure never met one of them. No, the calculated risk in 2000 was two-fold. One, many of us believed that the Democratic party would just keep moving endlessly to the right, and that a warning shot was required. For 98% of Nader’s supporters their vote was utterly meaningless and no damage was done by their vote. But the second half of the thinking was that a DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS would be able to blunt the worst of Bush’s excesses if worse came to worst. In that regard WE were betrayed by the rank and file party goers who refused to remove incumbents who jumped into bed with Bush-Gore faster than a truckstop whore running a twofer special.

Yes, I voted for John Kerry in 2004 and fuck me for being such a chump. The man won Ohio but didn’t have the balls to fight for his win. Hell, the Dems didn’t even have the balls to complain about Ohio.

Don’t blame Bush-Cheney for being Bush-Cheney. Blame the elected Democratic cowards who voted for a criminal war of aggression and who never once held Bush’s feet to the fire over anything.

Admit it: All you Nader haters OWN Joe Lieberman, lock, stock and hedgefund. He could have been our Vice President. Wow, wouldn’t that have been fucking ducky.