11/2/08

Pirate TV list member Don Rimmer sent this article in response to my write-up on the Nader program.  Feel free to send your comments also.  -Ed

WHAT NOW:

A Political Re-evaluation

Comments by: Don Rimmer

Despite the lessons of the 2000 election, and the supposed assistance of the Help America Vote Act enacted by congress after the 200 debacle, the voting process was not ameliorated by 2004, and accusations of fraudulent practices prevail.  This second experience left many reeling in disbelief.  It will never be known whether this election was decided fairly.  Too many electronic voting machines, absent a verifiable paper trail, were in use.  What is knowable is what the election outcome of 2004 will mean for the world.  United States bellicosity will continue unencumbered, and that thought is vividly sobering to many Americans.  The question heard many times over is, how do we change direction?

Since the 2004 election, a number of forums, lectures, and discussions have been held.  The common thread was confusion over how to effect political change.  Watching participants stand one-by-one to voice their concerns revealed a sense of helplessness pervading the halls and lecture sites.  Many felt a need to become active in order to seek change, but were at a loss at what they should do.  Repeatedly, the discussions turned toward what could be done to pull the Democratic Party in a more favorable direction.  This seemed like the obvious and easiest action to solving the conundrum.  Unfortunately, that notion is misdirected.

Directly moving the Democratic Party in any direction represents a hopeless endeavor.  What imparts change, in any party, is the loss of votes.  As much as we may wish Democrats to focus on important issues, we have no direct influence over their actions.  Collectively, we have much potential influence, but this power can only be realized when that strength is leveraged.  That leverage comes from strategic, informed, and honest voting.

What causes frustration is our acceptance of a two party restriction.  This acquiescence seemingly leaves us no viable option.  However, nothing limits our political system to two parties.  Considering the two major parties as the only acceptable options closes the door on change by usurping our collective power.  There is design to promoting general disregard for alternative parties, as it serves both Democrats and Republicans alike.  To change the direction of the government, we should be looking for positive alternatives.  This means paying attention to every candidate, especially those outside the two major parties, who are willing to address important issues.

To effect change, a different mindset is required, punctuated by a willingness to challenge the ideas we are blindly expected to accept, some of which are self-defeating.  One of the most nefarious notions is that of a “wasted vote.”  The portrayal is, if you do not vote for either the Democratic or Republican candidates, you will be throwing your vote away, because no one else has a chance of winning.  Of course, if we believe this to be true it will be true, becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.  The problem with this dogma is that it ensures the status quo, which is the basis for the described frustration above.  When you fall victim to this rhetoric, you end up voting for someone who does not portray your values, and is instead the “least worst” option.  That, by my estimation, is a wasted vote.  This should be the act of desperation, left to someone with no other option; but this is not the case for Americans.  In the election of 2004, there were Third Party candidates who reflected the precise concerns voiced by those who stood to express their dissatisfaction at the course of our government.  Those alternative candidates were simply not heard, taken seriously, or were ignored completely.  This needs to change.  To be tenable, more voters need to know where these office seekers stand on the issues.  If given a voice and visibility, alternative party candidates would force both Democratic and Republican representatives to speak about important concerns and issues, something woefully absent in our last elections.  Hearing these alternative voices is difficult for voters, however, because Third Party candidates are virtually invisible.  Make no mistake, this is by design.

There currently exists a cozy relationship between the Republican and Democratic parties.  This relationship is demonstrated poignantly by the Presidential Debate process, specifically through the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD).  This is ostensibly a non-partisan agency designed to oversee the political debate process.  In reality, it is a bipartisan organization, controlled by appointees of the two parties who simply follow instructions.  Control of the presidential debates permits candidates of the two major parties to avoid important issues, hard questions, and squaring off with candidates holding substantially different ideas, by dictating who is allowed to debate.  Since the CPD took control of the presidential debates from the League of Women Voters, there has been precisely one Third Party candidate allowed into the debate area.  Ross Perot was given a permission slip in 1992.  Reportedly, his ratings went from approximately 7% to 18% in just over one week.   Not only did people have a chance to hear his views, he forced the other candidates into uncomfortable territory.  That mistake was not made again by the CPD, however.  Neither major party would tolerate such amplification of support.  Ironically, by reaching 5% of the votes in 1992, Mr. Perot qualified for Federal Campaign Funds in 1996.  Despite this, he was kept out of the 1996 debates by agreement between the Republican and Democratic parties, through the CPD.  While taxpayers were helping pay for Mr. Perot’s campaign, they were not permitted to see him debate the other candidates.  This should have been an outrage to all taxpayers and voters.

It is easy to understand the value of having the chance to be seen, and to convey divergent ideas.  This is, after all, one of the aspirations of democracy.  To assure this broader scope of alternative thought, the debate process must be opened up to more participants with varying voices.  This will lend credibility to more candidates by giving face and voice to their ideals, ideas, and stances on issues important to many Americans.  Alternative candidates will become generally viable only when they are allowed to become conspicuous.  For this to happen, we must transfer debate control to an organization that will steward the process in a manner best suited for the voters, not the two major parties.  Objection from the CPD, to such change, will undoubtedly be vociferous, but that must not be a deterrent.  Third Party candidates will only truly become credible when we collectively become courageous enough to listen to them seriously.  We must then be willing to vote for them when they represent our beliefs and desires, whether they win the election or not.  Anything less is truly a “wasted vote,” and will stymie progressive change.  The process can be tempered with the adoption of instant run-off voting, but that is a different subject.

To understand the conditions of the current debate process, the book No Debate by George Farah covers the subject in detail.  The book clearly outlines what is transpiring under our noses.  He also has a website, http://www.opendebates.org that provides information about the book and his efforts to bring change to the current structure.  Suggested change to the current system could lead to debates that are more robust with more participants.  This makes possible open discussion of important and controversial issues, currently skirted by the two main parties.  Simply put, voters will have more choices.  Votes cast in accord with concerns truly important to Americans will indirectly cause change in all parties.  Talking about what we would like the Democratic Party to do differently will not net the change we seek.  Voting for the candidate that speaks to your concerns and issues will beget change; indeed, it is the only real way to change the direction of any party.

Rush Limbaugh stated, they have been building the conservative movement for 30 years.  That considered, it is wise to have realistic expectations, and realize progressive change will be a protracted struggle.  Despite intense desire, immediate change has unrealistic probability.  It takes time to break down old beliefs.  Perseverance is a requirement if we are to avert a dire future.  Nothing replaces consistent concerted effort.  Voting for one person just to keep another out of office is a poor long-term strategy for positive change.

Work to hear the message of all candidates, regardless of party or affiliation.  Find the one who best represents your ideals and beliefs.  Have the courage to vote for that person whatever his or her association.  Anything less is that “wasted vote.”  This can be the beginning of regaining credibility as a nation, reducing the suffering at home and abroad, restoring national pride, and truly making us all safer.

Pat wrote in regard to Ralph Nader’s article [Eight More Years?]: Sorry Ed - I totally disagree and totally have no respect for Ralph Nader in the first place...pat

Dear Pat,

The way I see it, whether you like or respect the source has nothing to do with anything.  What counts is what’s real and what’s not.  What I’ve learned over many decades is that people like Nader don’t say anything unless they have the facts behind them and if you had actually read his article you would know that the facts he is stating point to the obvious reality that the Clintons represent the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.   After all, it was Bill Clinton who organized and won election funded by the Democratic Leadership Council which is a vehicle for funneling corporate money [and control] into the Democratic Party.  This may be an excellent strategy for winning elections since Reagan virtually eliminated Labor as a factor in the 70s, but it is a piss poor way to accomplish social progress.  Eight years of Bill Clinton is adequate testimony to that as Ralph correctly points out –by stating facts.  If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times: the real action is in the battle to take back the Democratic Party.  This battle is going on right now and grass roots activists and corporatists alike are well aware of it.  Are you?

If you had been paying attention you would be noticing while the corporate regime through illegitimate consolidated media power [bestowed by Bill Clinton and the Newt Gingrich Congress] are deciding for us who will be our next president.  Kucinich who was the only bona fide candidate to voice a real challenge to corporate rule [which after all is the only real issue] can’t even get on the debates while on the other side, every whack-o from the 13^th century seems to have no problem irregardless of their chances.   Edwards is next.  Unless we stop it, he will go the way of Howard Dean who disappeared 3 days after he foolishly spouted off on MSNBC about the necessity to break up the big media conglomerates.

You may think that corporate shills like Clinton or Obama are going to give us something other than more Milton Freedman style “shock therapy”.  As much as he is trying to back pedal, it’s not an accident what Obama said about Reagan.  That was an unmistakable signal to Wall Street that he is willing to play ball.  Who knows, maybe you think corporate rule is just hunky-dory.  Maybe you think that somehow because we elect a corporatist Democrat that it miraculously adds up to single payer health care, a restoration of Habeas Corpus, an end to endless war, a return to support for public education, or a restoration of rule by the people through public financing of elections, media deconsolidation, etc.  Maybe you actually think that corporatists in the White House just because they call themselves Democrats will be likely to save us from runaway climate change by actually doing something before it’s too late.   Maybe you think that it means restoration of the rule of law, an end to torture as foreign policy and that the current occupants will be held to account for their treasonous crimes.  -Crimes which call for long prison sentences if not worse.  Maybe you think that they will do something to restore the middle class.  Maybe you think that happy days will be here again –that somehow these are the same type of folks that brought us the New Deal.

Dream on Pat.  How many elections have you been through?  All you have to do is look no farther than the actions of that worthless Democratic Congress we fought so hard to elect to get an excellent vision of what the Democratic Party as it is now is likely to accomplish in the next 8 years.  But this all didn’t just dawn on me yesterday, I lived through 8 years of Bill Clinton and apparently unlike you, I was actually paying attention.  I’ll say it one more time:  We’re in the 3^rd and most destructive corporate regime in US history.  The Democrats are the ‘good cops’.  The only thing that counts for our survival and future wellbeing is how we are going to get out of this straight jacket we’re in.  With that perspective, the only thing that counts in candidates is how far up the ass of corporate power they are and how amenable to the pressure we are going to have to apply they are likely going to be.  I’m sorry for you Pat; the Clintons gave the game away about whose side they were on long before they even got to the White House.  I stopped listening to what politicians say long ago.  What they say has very little to do with what happens when they get power.  Bill Clinton had me going the first time he ran for president.  Unlike too many others, I won’t get fooled again.  And I’m sick to death of saying ‘I told you so’.  I risked getting my head bashed in to stop Richard’s corporate agenda, Ronald’s, George the First’s, Bill’s, now George the 2^nd’s, and I don’t relish the thought of getting my head bashed in to stop Hillary’s.

I sent out that article not because it was from Ralph Nader but because he took the words out of my own mouth.  It could have been Ralph Nader or any number of progressive writers who have been pointing out the very same obvious facts for more than a decade.  I watched as all those things Ralph was talking about in that article happened and was so angry about the in-your-face betrayal that I didn’t even vote for Clinton the second time and I swallowed a lot of tear gas fighting on the streets of Seattle to stop the Bush/Clinton Neo-Con WTO enterprise.

So once again, I could care less whether you respect Ralph Nader or what you totally agree or disagree about.  I don’t know about Ralph but if you want to make a point with me, make sure you bring some ammunition to back it up.  Otherwise don’t waste my time.  Because I just have to assume you are one of those people who believe what they want to believe and for whom facts don’t matter.   The polite way to describe this is “cognitive dissonance”.

-Ed

 Comments:

Claire wrote Sun 1/27/2008 9:40 PM

Right on Ed ! I wonder who this Pat is, with such empty words...

Yes, watching the candidates circus, even on Dem. Now, I get sick to my stomach. How can people not see what the Clintons are about? Obama gives me a little hope but of course is not going far enough and the whole biz, the waste, is appalling.

Yes, the movers and shakers views, the few who question the regime, is part of what can help, thank you for bringing it to our attention with passion and courage

Claire

Noemie wrote Sun 1/27/2008 9:46 PM

Ed --

Perfect.  Thanks.

I have hope, maybe it's vain, that we'll get something a little bit different if Obama's elected.  Yeah, we'll get the corporate crap.   But if there's the political will in the "electorate" at large, we may get some good results as well -- particularly in dealing with the emergencies almost sure to be coming with climate change, economic instability, and violence we've ignited against us.  I hope, I hope -- and I have some cause to hope at least -- that Obama's not hellbent on doing nothing but causing more pain and that, if there's some opening for him to do it, he'll get some things right.   After all, we've had better and worse presidents.

What I fear is that Clinton's going to bully her way in.  And my hope is much slimmer with her that we'll have any chance to turn things around. 

Dreams from my Father - Obama's book -- not bogus.  I think he's probably a real human being.

Noemie

Ed writes:

We all get our hopes up every election cycle but I fear that real power no longer resides in political office.  It’s revolution that we are talking about.  I spent the Christmas break reading Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine”.  I was getting very depressed by the time I got to the part about what happened to the ANC revolution in South Africa.  They fought and won an armed struggle gaining political power but it didn’t mean a thing.  Blacks are 10 times worse off now than they were under apartheid.  The section that starts on page 202 about sums it up.  If winning a violent armed struggle is not enough to bring a real revolution then it’s a bit short sighted to think that a bogus election in the United States is of much significance.  Elections appear to be bringing change in South America but the real revolution was not televised.  The revolution was when the vast majority of the population became politicized and said “Ya Basta!”  Enough!   At this point corporate rule even military coups are no longer effective.  Everybody’s hip to the game that is being played, the jig is up, nobody cooperates, everybody gets out in the street and shuts the country down.  It’s impossible to rule when the entire population refuses to be ruled.  We’re taught that our destiny is in the hands of the next president but it’s not about them.  Obama may be the real thing but he can’t do shit without us.  And if he isn’t the real thing it doesn’t matter.  Whoever it is, we don’t have a choice.  If we don’t take the country back, we are dead.

The deck is definitely stacked for Hillary.  I learned in the Caucus training that I think it is 49% of the delegates are so called “Super Delegates” –party hacks and officials a third of which [according to Geov Parrish] are already pledged to Hillary.  She is the hand picked next president of the corporate establishment.  Obama could upset the applecart because it will look bad for him to come to the convention with a commanding lead in delegates and have the party hacks throw it to Clinton.

Jim wrote Sun 1/27/2008 9:50 PM:

Ed,

        While you're my hero and all, you missed with this last letter.

Sure, Hillary is a belt high fast ball for the powers that be.  But that statement about Obama and his riff on Reagan you're simply wrong (IMHO).

He introduced Reagan as a transformational figure.  Dead right.  He let the other guys call it praise, then stated, without any malice whatever, that Reagan transformed the nation in a direction that he disapproved of.

        By this he did a few things at the same time.  One, he showed that he can play the game; suckered them into characterizing his statement then nailed them for it.  Two, he brought Reagan, into play and thereby opened the door for looking at the Nation as it was before that transformation.  This was a necessary step because the Publicans have held him up as a demi diety.  Of course they'd have to, being the only hero they had after the disgraces like Nixon and the elder Bush.

        What we as We the People have to do is raise the ground swell so much that reopening the 9/11 Commission becomes a viable thing for McDermott and Inslee to shame Pelosi into.  My path on this has been to distribute 9/11 movies around with the promise, with each of the disks I distribute, that the recipient will further share them with five others.

        Something I'd like to see if for people in other parts of the country to do what you're doing as far as Public TV goes.  But then, that's why you're my hero, man!

Love.

Ed Writes:

Dear Jim,

Don’t get the idea that Reagan is a demi diety for any other reason than that the media created it.  He was an awful president and most of the public sees it that way.  Same as George Bush is president only because the media refused to expose what an obvious looser he is and then covered up the fact that he stole both elections.  I read what Obama said before he clarified himself (after he was attacked by Hillary).  Lots of other people attacked him too.  It sounded like praise to me at the time.  Your theory sounds too far fetched for me.  I don’t think these strategists are all that smart, but who knows.  Maybe they did plan it.

Here is another theory.  Let’s say Obama really is the real thing.  He realizes he has a real chance after his first win.  He’s playing chess.  You can’t blame him for playing it smart.  He doesn’t want to be the victim of corporate media assassination like Dean, Kucinich or Edwards by risking sounding too populist, anti-corporate or even “black”.  He’s walking a fine line because he’s savvy enough to know who really runs things.  Let’s face it, they are all way ahead of us on this account, because they know who feeds their account.  So he tossed the Freedmanites a bone in code.  He clarified himself later but the fascists are mollified.  –He’s not a threat.  Whether he has threat in his heart is not of any real significance.  No president has the power to get us out of this mess even if it was Kucinich or Nader unless we the people force it.  If all the prestige and moral power of a Nelson Mandela couldn’t stop gangster capitalism from ruling his own country, what makes you think they could?   I’ll be glad to see the Bush crime family gone but I have no faith in Presidential elections.   The whole thing has been rigged from top to bottom.  The only way we are going to get out of the corporate regime without a lot of blood is if we all rise up at once and shut the country down and then some.  -Ed

Don wrote  Sun 1/27/2008 11:34 PM

Hi Ed,

Pat's laconic response is telling.  He doesn't agree with the original statement  but does not refute specifics or qualify his position.  He merely states he doesn't agree or like Ralph (who knows why).  It is impossible to deliberate with callowness.  Contrast this with the childhood Noam Chomsky describes where polictics were discussed daily at the local newsstand.  You can see the affects of the dumbing down of America.

I wanted to comment on a statement you made, "the real action is in the battle to take back the Democratic Party" and offer my two cents worth.  It was when I spent time researching the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) that I came to realize just how far down this "democracy" had fallen. 

I came to realize that recapturing the Democratic Party is folly.  Perhaps progress can be made at the lower echelons, but meaningful control at the higher perches is impossible.  It will take time, but I now believe any real change will have to come from alternative parties.  Of course, this is also impossible until control of the debate process can be recaptured.  Never mind third party candidates, as you mentioned Kucinich couldn't even get in the debates from within the Democratic Party.  And which of the other candidates remonstrated, only a brief comment from Obama, that was it.  Until the debates open up, there is no real hope of making the progress you describe, as I see it.  I hope I'm wrong, but I am dubious.

For any who may be interested in the CPD and the history of the debate process, George Farah's book, No Debate provides some provocative details.  Also, here is a link to a video about Nader's fiasco over the debate process:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VRd3YzOXpI 

Maybe if he watches this, Pat can explain why he doesn't like Ralph but doesn't seem to mind those that corrupt the very democracy he is trying to restore.

Cheers,

Don

Hi Don,

Thanks for your thoughtful letter.  It’s not going to be easy but as the famed political scientist Charles Derber points out in his book: “Regime Change Begins at Home, Freeing America from Corporate Rule”, this is how regime change traditionally happened in US history.  He’s the one who got me on this kick.  He points out as we all know that the US has always been stuck in this two party system, something that the founders never envisioned.  They never even expected political parties to congeal and thought that it would trash the system if they did.  The winner take all system and the collusion of the two parties made sure that third parties are not politically viable.  But that does not mean that third parties are not important.  Often new ideas that originate in third parties end up influencing and even becoming the new paradigm.

The two previous corporate regimes in the gilded age and the twenties prior to the great crash were ended when populist forces took over the Democratic Party.  But populism originated in the prairie populist movement of the late 19th century.  This party lost the election but the next time around took over the Democratic Party and ran their candidate –William Jennings Bryan as the Democrat.  He lost again but the sea change in consciousness led to the election of the populist Teddy Roosevelt –as a Republican and temporarily restored balance which was undone by the resurgence of corporate power and political repression during WWI and the roaring twenties ensued.  The corporatists finally wore out their welcome when their excesses ran the economy into the ground once again and brought on the Great Depression.  Once again the threat presented by third parties such as Eugene Debs’ Socialists and other organizers played a key role in forcing the New Deal.

These things all happened because of facts on the ground which brought about organizing and a change in consciousness in the masses of the people who forced change, not so much because of organizing within the Democratic Party itself.  That said, it is the only real avenue for social progress because Greens, Socialists, Wobblies, etc. don’t have representation in Congress and as we all know the Republican Party in this era is not an option.  When I say: “the real action is in the battle to take back the Democratic Party”, I mean to point out that we are witnessing this struggle going on again right now.   It doesn’t matter how corrupt the party is, at some point, the “party within a party” as Nader calls it will be replaced or become irrelevant because things are only going to get worse and the people will inevitably force change.  Will it come too late?  Looks like it, but that only means we have to fight harder while there is still a chance of saving our habitat.  I’ve been saying that the notion that some Democrat like Obama or even Kucinich is going to save us is an illusion.  No President is powerful enough to get us out of the corporate regime.  It is we who will have to force change, we can elect progressives to political office but real change comes from massive upheaval.  Revolution doesn’t come by asking politely.  Voting usually isn’t enough.  Witness recent events in Latin America; the people voted but they had to shut the country down -repeatedly in most cases because real power does not reside in political office during times of corporate rule.  -Ed

Noemie writes Mon 1/28/2008 12:08 PM

Thanks, Ed!  This is interesting to read.

Politicians aren't going to save us.  Some will make it harder for people to work for change.  Obama, I hope, will be less obstructive and -- dare I hope -- it's possible he may do more good than harm.

I'm seeing a rough ride ahead with climate change in the next 8 years - and I'm hoping I'm not right.  I am pretty sure there will be some real challenges.

The question is how many of these will take place, how intensely, how close together, how will they strain our already fragile ecosystem and economic system?  With events like the ones I list below, I feel that panic on the part of the population at large - and the impositiion of martial law and further civil rights lockdown -- are our greatest dangers.  Here are some things I forsee as possible....

Coastal sections of the US inundated; the insurance industry faltering; farms flooded out; food and fuel supplies disrupted; communications increasingly disrupted/unreliable; typhoons, etc. with loss of life and property; heatwaves killing the vulnerable in the inner cities; water shortages affecting farms, energy production, and even consumer water supplies; increasingly expensive gasoline affecting the ability of the poor and even middle class to drive to work, etc;  forests burning; homes and businesses burning with them; streets and bridges collapsing; more virulent forms of diseases spreading among people, farm animals, forests.... and also migration of pests /weeds/ species where we don't know how to handle them.

With events like this, our biggest challenge is not to panic.  Will we have a government in place that will lock down remaining resources and impose martial law, brutalize the population?  Will we see what we saw with the police power used during Katrina to deny people the right to walk over a bridge into an area where it was safe -- so that some of them subsequently died?

Or can someone with Obama's background of sensitivity to human and civil rights -- and his positive spirit and charisma be more likely to keep from imposing martial law except where temporarily and where absolutely necessary --  is he more likely to have the personal resources to help people to feel united, help people see this as a challenge to meet, to stave off panic?

This is my vision of our potential future.  With the Clintons in there, with McCain in there - especially with Romney in there....  we're in deeper shit.

Noemie

Jim writes Mon 1/28/2008 12:59 PM:

Ed,

        Let me walk you through this, one step at a time.

Love.

Dear Jim,

Don’t get the idea that Reagan is a demi diety for any other reason than that the media created it. 

Reason be damned.  Reagan is celebrated.  It is the celebration which, brought up incessantly, should show us how it's done.  Let's say we talk about the NeoCons as Publicans at each turn of the cards.  What then?  Lefties will hardly notice but the Pat Robertson crowd will howl.  So why do it?  First it is to hear them howl, after all how could they defend themselves?  'How dare you call me a Publican while I've (or I've not) called you the Democrat Party?'    

 He was an awful president and most of the public sees it that way.  Same as George Bush is president only because the media refused to expose what an obvious looser he is and then covered up the fact that he stole both elections.

By constantly praising Reagan, those who actually remember are marginalized.  By keeping silent on the subject of Reagan, Dems perpetuate the deification.  Obama broke the silence, illuminating this stupidity.  I've been all about this but didn't know how to break the log jam. 

I read what Obama said before he clarified himself (after he was attacked by Hillary).  Lots of other people attacked him too.  It sounded like praise to me at the time.

 What Obama did was to say "Reagan was transformational in changing the direction of the nation in a way that Nixon and Clinton were not."  Perfect.  He didn't do it on a major stage, also perfect.  He made them 'dig it out' of his remarks - as if it were some kind of an admission that he privately admired Reagan.  Perfect.  

 Your theory sounds too far fetched for me.  I don’t think these strategists are all that smart, but who knows.  Maybe they did plan it.

 Obama came out of Law School on top of the heap.  He went on to teach Constitutional Law.  Then he cut his teeth on politics starting on the South Side of Chicago (it's the baddest part of town ...) 

Here is another theory.  Let’s say Obama really is the real thing.  He realizes he has a real chance after his first win.  He’s playing chess.  You can’t blame him for playing it smart.  He doesn’t want to be the victim of corporate media assignation like Dean, Kucinich or Edwards by risking sounding too populist, anti-corporate or even “black”.  He’s walking a fine line because he’s savvy enough to know who really runs things.  Let’s face it, they are all way ahead of us on this account, because they know who feeds their account.  So he tossed the Freedmanites a bone in code.  He clarified himself later but the fascists are mollified.  –He’s not a threat.  Whether he has threat in his heart is not of any real significance.  No president has the power to get us out of this mess even if it was Kucinich or Nader unless we the people force it.  If all the prestige and moral power of a Nelson Mandela couldn’t stop gangster capitalism from ruling his own country, what makes you think they could?   I’ll be glad to see the Bush crime family gone but I have no faith in Presidential elections.   The whole thing has been rigged from top to bottom.  The only way we are going to get out of the corporate regime without a lot of blood is if we all rise up at once and shut the country down and then some.  -Ed

    Yes it's rigged.  Right.  What we've had to this point is a leadership invested in the rigging.  On the other side, we have laws.  The real question at this point is are we about killing the King.  If you're about killing the king, make sure that you kill the king.  Nuremberg?  Perhaps.  World Court?  More likely.  But let's be smart.   Representatives from the House can file impeachment papers.  This is without limit.  So far we have Kucinich and McDermott.  Believe it or not, Inslee isn't that far away.  I say let's push them to file impeachments twice weekly.  

        Part of this whole thing is about framing.  I say let's frame ourselves as the diligent cop.  Nothing more than simple enforcement of law, even handed and fair.  Engage in international manipulation of energy supplies to accomplish a given market price and you get appropriate treatment in the courts.  Simple.  Invade a nation such as Haiti and kidnap their president?  We've got laws about that.  Conspire to do the kidnapping?  We've got laws about that, too.  Use the mail to ship anthrax to elected officials?  We've got laws about that.  Take a US citizen from the Airport in Chicago and take them out of the country and hold them without charge?  We've got laws.  

        And on it goes.  But for Obama, he has to do it as little steps that the people who are vested in the rigging will see it as a cheer for their side.  I'm looking for a line like 'those who have a powerful voice in the trajectory of our nation' coming in somewhere, 'opening the discussion of the trajectory our nation is to take in our near future' and so on.  The notion that our nation has a trajectory.  Brilliant.

Love.   

(oh, that's a command, by the way.)

Ed writes:

Dear Jim,

I’m in total agreement with you except that I think that although Obama is a brilliant man, after reviewing what he actually said about the “excesses of the 60s” etc. it still makes me very nervous.  Clearly the excess of the 60s were on behalf of the establishment as always: the Viet Nam War, the assignations of all the country’s most promising leaders, The Cointellpro program, the bloodbath at the Democratic Convention… etc.  He could be brilliant but it’s not unthinkable that he could also be very clueless, or just kissing the necessary asses.  I’m not buying his explanation; your theory that this was a plan still seems to be a stretch.  We all want to believe, but I don’t trust any one who could be allowed get within an inch of the White House.  I’m convinced it was either a faux pas or a signal to Wall Street as I said.  Here are his actual words; it’s hard not to interpret it to be anything other than what it says.  I reiterate that I prefer him to Hilary and when it comes down to it, it’s going to be up to us no matter who wins the White House.  Presidents have the power to kill millions of people overseas but it’s only us who can force social progress here at home.  I think that’s what Gore realized.

Senator Barack Obama: “I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path, because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown, but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people—he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”

I don’t have time to write any more on this, I’m trying to dig my way out of a computer crash.  If you need more discussion there is some excellent commentary on Common Dreams: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/17/6445/

Carol forwarded this correspondence from Michael Parenti Mon 1/28/2008 1:38 PM:

Thanks Michael,

I wonder where I got the idea. Recollection was point was that Edwards was only candidate that had show consistency in his capacity as a trial lawyer in taking on corporate abuse 7 over-reaching.

Carol

-----Original Message-----

From: Michael Parenti [mailto:mp@michaelparenti.org]

Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 4:31 PM

To: Carol

Subject: Re: John Edwards

  actually, Carol, my support was for Kucinich. I did not write an

article on behalf of Edwards. But I am voting for him in the California

primary because K is bowing out if I understand correctly. Edwards would

probably be the best candidate to defeat the Republicans. That's what

the polls showed. But in the primaries, as with Kucinich, he has been

shut out by the media, rather ruthlessly that.

Carol OConnell wrote:

>Happy New Year Michael!

>

>

>I could not find the email I got from you on why your money was on

>Edwards. Would you please send again or update me if you have an

>expanded or changed view.  Like to forward to Ed Mays of Pirate TV in

>Seattle.

>

>Carol

>________________________________________

>From: Carol

>Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 10:13 AM

>To: Ed Mays (edmays@clearwire.net)

>Subject: Thanks!FW: Why not to vote for Hillary

>

>Thanks Ed.

>

>I am forwarding also Parenti article re Edwards.  In Joy, Carol

>________________________________________

>From: Carol

>Subject: FW: Why not to vote for Hillary

>

>

>I like the “good cop” characterization reminding how much is staged.

>

> I’d like to think we have a chance to have some decisions that are not

>owned by the Lords of corporate rule with Edwards. Perhaps naïve to

>think that anyone can exist in the Presidency if not largely doing

>their bidding especially with the degradation of the Office that Geo II

>has brought to

it.

>I think Obama helps though in making people hope that things can be

>different, that their choice will be heard and acted upon.  For me, it

>is very important that we give up the childish dependency on thinking a

>specific leader or party is going to make things “right”.  Geo II has

served

>America well in shattering that way of comforting ourselves and

>side-stepping our individual responsibility to build the society we

>want from our own behavior and work within our communities.

>

>My wish is that there is a balance in people realizing that they cannot

rely

>on leadership but that the focusing of the goals of a society that is

>ready to operate from a foundation of social justice and recognition,

>if not respect for the living system in which all our creating is

>nested (as contrasted to the increasing manifestation of the Lords

>“Just Us” skewing of the dynamics of how we exchange energy, regulate

>participation, and relate to Nature) and Americans taking hope in a

>leader that is sharing that agenda.

>

>I am curios and excited about how this is unfolding!

>

>Carol

Claire writes Mon 1/28/2008 2:26 PM:

Ok Ed, having read comments below I'll add this :

-  I DON'T EXPECT ANY PRESIDENT TO SAVE ME, SAVE US. 

WE THE PEOPLE HAVE TO SAVE OURSELVES. From the grass root, or forget it. 

M. Moore says it SO well in the excellent interview by D.B on NOW this last friday, about  doc Sicko. 2 sharp and courageous men talking, right on! Check out the video clip before it's gone from their e-newsletters.

I am bracing myself for the possibility of the next Pdt to  

* either be assassinated, physically or  otherwise

* or  else, out of survival instinct/greed, to repeat the same old corrupted words and deeds, just a question of new name, color, etc.

In this context, see the doc by investigative journalist Norman Solomon: War Made Easy. It makes crystal-clear how over the past 50 yrs (and right after the unspeakable unimaginable enormous atrocities of WWII, o surprise!),  ALL presidents that didn't get assassinated kept talking us into wedging AND continuing the next war, and the next one and the next one, with the same old tricks of gross FEAR inducing lies, combined with blocked information replaced by PROPAGANDA. And particularly in this country, where the tradition of questioning authorities has nearly completely disappeared,  what's left is a great majority of blind followers focusing on saving their asses by gathering as much money as possible before the boat sinks.  I keep hearing :"but I didn't vote for him" and "oh, things will change once we have a democrat" and other irresponsible illusions. People are waiting for the corrupt boss to do it for them. That ain't gonna work. Do you remember that 2 presidents, brothers on top of it,  plus 1 inspired Black Leader = 3 leaders got assassinated within 6 years ! 6 years! 

- Hillary is just another corrupt money fueled opportunist and her raison d'etre has become to win at all costs. Listen to her forced vocal "enthusiasm"! Unfortunately, Kucinich doesn't have the charisma/radiance and the shining gold that should support his sane ideas

- Read book "3 cups of tea" like many around me, it helps to see the light twice (= see the truth, and get inspired).

So what's left? For me: 

* keep connected with inspiring truth-tellers (see www.yesmagazine.org , go to Americans Who Tell The Truth, Portraits by Robert Shetterly) for without truthful information/freedom to know, there is no democracy. By the way how dare we preach democracy to the world and fail to shamefully here! But of course it's about oil and other resources, money, domination. 

* keep hooked with  the people who connect us with them and alternative actions, to face the darkness and look for a candle... (Alternative Radio, Democracy Now, Ed Mays, even Steve Scher and G. Keillor on KUOW, and definitively Yes Magazine) 

* keep track of how far we have slipped into Naomi Kleins' list of steps to dictatorship (her book End of Democracy): We have already arrived, the rest is detail.

* keep dialogue alive, which is a challenge in this country (I come from Europe where it's cultivated with pride)

yes, let's be the change we want to see.

And how come we are getting used to the statement "Obama is black". I say he is an American Citizen and a world citizen, half Kenyan half Swede, half empty half full, either way and both, and the hell with the color of his skin anyway. His passionate heart, spirit, strength, dignity, authenticity is what matters. Amazing he got so far considering the deep US racism and the difference of money between him, and the Clintons and their corporate cons. I have great respect for him. And lets not say she will win, dangerous self fulfilling prophecy. Let's focus on her falling and him rising and then let's count on us first, so we can tell him what to do.

Enough for today. Good day to you! Cheers!

C

Crimsonwolf 23 writes Mon 1/28/2008 4:10 PM:

I am in total agreement with you, Ed.
 
I'm sick of holding my nose and campaigning for and voting for the "lesser of the evils" and then stupidly being surprised when I end up with "evil".
 
I'll go a few steps further. I find it very disingenuous for progressives and Democrats to fall in step with the DNC's vilification of Ralph Nader because he had the guts to run for President and as they complain that there were illegal things done by the Republicans to tamper with the electionS. The DNC then have used Ralph's candidacy as a scapegoat to crush the hopes of any potential third party challenges INSTEAD of attacking the Republicans for their election rigging crimes.
 
Nader "lost the election for them"? What a joke. The Democratic Party let both elections be taken from them. The people that voted for Bush, the people who voted for Buchanon, the people that didn't vote at all and the DNC refusing to insist that the votes in Florida be counted were the reasons that Gore "lost". Running Kerry, a weak lukewarm mealy-mouthed corporate hack was also a major factor in his losing the election.  
 
The Supreme (activist) Court's picking of Bush was one thing. (Remember the Supremes explanation why the votes had to stop being counted was because if they were continued to be counted "it might do irreparable harm to the Bush candidacy".) But when Kerry let them get away with "swift-boating" him and then when he (against Edwards strong disagreements) rolled over and peed on himself as he capitulated BEFORE all of the votes had even been counted..... well that was enough "evil" for me to say "screw these phony hacks". I knew in my heart all along that they were elitist blowhards and liars but I was just in denial out of desperation.
 
A vote for Hillary or Obama is a VOTE FOR MORE NANCY PELOSI, HARRY REID, CHUCK SCHUMER AND THE OTHER DNC SPINELESS ARSE LICKERS! They couldn't even stand up to Joe Leiberman! No thanks.
 
While I'm at it... Another thing that is astonishing to me about people's voting choices, is this. Somewhere along the line the notion came along that voting for a candidate is supposed to be like choosing a lottery ticket. You know, everyone tries to pick the winner. Wrong folks. That isn't what democracy is about. You are suppose to vote for the person that reflects your values, ideas and wishes. Duh!
 
As far as I'm concerned, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney are 500% tougher and 500% more honest than Kerry, Hillary, Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the corporate Democrats rolled up together. History will prove them to be the REAL PATRIOTS. It also looks like John Edwards means to join their honored ranks.
 
What they allowed to happen to Kucinich is criminal and it was the DNC and the corporate Dems that allowed it to happen without saying peep. They were probably totally responsible for it happening as well.
 
Support Edwards loudly now!
 
Crimsonwolf 23 

**********************

Once again the world’s most powerful corporations are picking our presidential candidates and what issues if any will be discussed right before our very noses.  Contrary to what the corporate media would like us to believe, elections are supposed to provide us with a rare opportunity to discuss the most important issues and decide what direction we want our country to go.  They are not supposed to be a beauty contest between candidates selected by who can raise the most corporate money to circulate back to big media through multimillion dollar media buys and phony debates where who is allowed to appear and what questions are allowed are chosen not by us.  This circle is too tight for me and I have chosen to do something about it.

So in addition to a $25 contribution to Dennis Kucinich to help him purchase an add to run during tomorrow night’s ABC “debate” and an email to ABC through IndependentPrimary.Com, I am passing the opportunity on to you by forwarding these emails.  [The other emails was from the Kucinich campaign.]

Thanks,

Ed Mays

Producer, Pirate Television