Not to rock the vote or anything, but only because you have probably followed this thing more closely than anyone else I know and I've learned a lot about this race from here on the New Disease, but I'm just curious about your take on this interview with Ralph Nader and his prediction that, unless the average American citizens act fast and strong the world really won't see much change at all under Obama's presidency. I suppose one might accuse Nader of sour grapes but really, he couldn't have had much of any hope of a win given his budget (and his style) and he must have mostly intended his bid as a way to get these issues on the table. And naturally, he was almost totally snubbed by the press; I have yet to find anyone who even knew he was running until the actual election!
I have been thinking about this exact situation - at least regarding the power influences that are being brought to bear. I feel we do need to make ourselves heard. We have done that and need to continue doing so. Progressives already are, I know.But, as much as I hate drawing Lincoln-Obama parallels, as a former insider on the Lincoln academic gravy train, here's one that I think stands: Like Lincoln, don't underestimate Obama. I've already heard pundits and politicians talking about him in the exact same kind of language they used about Lincoln: he's a rube, a pushover, he's gonna be mobbed by every special interest, blah blah blah. Where on earth folks get these ideas after watching probably the most single-minded political candidate any of us will ever see in our lifetimes accomplish something almost unthinkable just a few years ago, I don't know. But they better look out, I think. Though I truly hope that only a few if any former Clinton folk get inside his White House; even given that there are so few people of a certain age with the right experience to do certain things in Washington - I just do not trust them!I'm more scared that Bush will do his damndest via Imperial Decree to completely destroy the few still-standing monuments of our republic in the next month or so. How many secret orders are going out right now?
Oh, I actually have several friends who voted Nader this time. And were really supportive of him!
Thanks, I'm reassured a bit now. and as for "I'm more scared that Bush will do his damndest via Imperial Decree to completely destroy the few still-standing monuments of our republic in the next month or so." yeah, well, that was going to be my next question ;)
Ralph Nader is a fucking asshole.
heh, Nazz, thanks for the enlightenment. I guess you can't be, like, more specific, eh?
ok, here's specific...the guy stayed inthe race in 2000 despite knowing that he would siphon votes from gore. and then he did the same thing in 2004 and torpedoed kerry.And, he ran again this year, which could have sank Obama.
Nazz, fair enough; I had the identical complaint about Elizabeth May and her (pro-nuke) 'Green' Party here in Canada. "If they really wanted to make a difference," I would say, "They should join one of the two mainstream parties and force eco-change that way."Only now I've changed. I'm not so confident about the Democratic Method under these two-party systems, it just seems to me too much like a one-party system where Corporate Interests pre-select candidates about as different as 'brands' of Lever Bros detergents, leaving us with two bland and largely equivalent decisions. So in that sense I suppose I agree with Nader in that it doesn't really matter who gets into power, so long as we make it clear they can only stay there if they adhere to our agenda. So I guess I agree with November5.org (although I'm more fond of the John Lennon version) and yes, I think he was a fool to do a mock presidential run like he was Pat Paulsen (or Bill The Cat) just to make his point.But you have a very good point. Here in Canada we have twice had situations where (each of) right or left got split and therefore could not compete against the other until they resolved their differences and absorbed the rebel party. I personally do not understand why block-voting is so essential (why not allow every seat a free vote?) but so long as we do have Party politics, its all back to tribal chieftains who can out-piss each other (which is, btw, how most failed civilations have failed, cf the Greenland Norse) but then, there's a lot of what goes on that I don't understand, and if GoMonkeyGo tells me this Obama guy is different, I'm willing to wait and see; he does, after all, carry Coltrane on his iPod.
Guys - check out this article in the WaPo:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/08/AR2008110801856.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008110900031&s_pos=The thoroughness, the readiness of the incoming Obama administration to really hit back at eight years of repression and political chicanery (to call it a nice word) is evident here.
Looks good, although I don't see anything at all in there about this whole big business business of your economy spending over half its money fueling global war, but hey, it's early yet, right? Plenty of time to get around to curtailing the killing. I probably would have voted Obama had I been there, but I probably would have preferred Michael Jackson's foreign policy :)
I always thought Jackson was a pro-Lycanthrope Party man all the way.The Army is already using Obama's timetable for Iraq withdrawal as a recruiting tool! I think diplomacy is the watchword for Obama, not militancy. But it will take a while to pull rein in the wild horse that our military spending has let loose.
Post a Comment