The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    oldenGoldenDecoy's picture

    It's NOT about Nader ... It's about energizing the Progressive base...

    .

    Now that Ralph is out of the way...

    As some here already know, yesterday I posted Ralph ... Where art thou?

    It appears to have gotten folks' attention. It was received with over 500+ reads and commenting that was somewhat spirited (to put it mildly)

    And, what Genghis posted really hit the mark about the Nader debate:

    I desperately wish that Nader would disappear into a black hole--if only so that I wouldn't have to read any more angry debates about whether or not he's a narcissistic jerk who made Gore lose. On the other hand, his disappearance would probably just provoke a fresh round of eulogies and denunciations, and it would be worse than ever.

    So maybe it would be better if all the people who believe that Nader's character is an important topic to rehash yet again for the sake of posterity and/or the google wayback machine would suddenly disappear into a black hole where they could flame each other to their heart's content--or as much as is possible within the bowels of a singularity. I'd be cool with that.

    Thank you Genghis. Because, the actual crux of the message I posted was totally overlooked, just by the presence of the announcement of Nader jumping into the spotlight.

    The real message is about: Should progressives challenge Obama in the Democratic primaries?
     

    Now ... Let's see what discussions can be had over the points made in the letter.

    To assist you the reader, a full in-depth explanation titled
    Should Progressives Challenge Obama in the Democratic Primaries? can be found in a post by: Rabbi Michael Lerner at Tikkun Daily, September 22nd, 2011.
     

    THE INVITATION TO CHALLENGE OBAMA IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES

    September 17, 2011

     

    Dear Colleague,

     

    We write to you in light of recent deteriorating events in Washington, D.C. Misguided negotiations by the Obama Administration over increasing the debt ceiling willingly put our nation’s vital social services on the chopping block while Bush-era tax cuts remain untouched. Clearly the situation has reached crisis proportions. In response, an innovative plan has been announced to reintroduce a progressive agenda back into the political discussion during the 2012 election season.

     

    Consider for a moment two very different scenarios for the 2012 Democratic presidential primaries.

     

    The First scenario, President Obama advances without contest to a unanimous nomination. There is no recognizable Democratic challenger, no meaningful debate on key progressive issues or past broken promises, just a seamless, self-contained operation on its way to raising one billion dollars in campaign funds.

     

    This scenario is what most observers expect. Mr. Obama will face neither opposition nor debate. He will have no need to clarify or defend his own polices or address the promises, kept and unkept, of his 2008 campaign. The president will not have to explain to his supporters why he directly escalated the war in Afghanistan and broadened America’s covert war in Pakistan, why he chose to engage in a military intervention in Libya, or why he has maintained the Bush Administration’s national security apparatus that allows for the suspension and abuse of constitutionally protected civil liberties–dismissing Congress all the way.

     

    In an uncontested Democratic primary, President Obama will never have to justify his decision to bail out Wall Street’s most profitable firms while failing to push for effective prosecution of the criminal behavior that triggered the recession, or his failure to push for real financial reform. He will not have to defend his decision to extend the Bush era tax cuts nor justify his acquiescence to Republican extortion during the debt ceiling negotiations. He will not have to answer questions on how his Administration completely failed to protect homeowner’s losing their homes to predatory banks, or even mention the word “poverty,” as he failed to do in his most recent State of the Union Address, even as more and more Americas sink into financial despair.

     

    He will never be challenged to fulfill his pledge to actively pursue a Labor-supported card check, or his promise to increase the federal minimum wage or why he took single payer off the table after he said he believes in it. The American labor movement, facing an unprecedented onslaught by the Right will not have the opportunity to voice its concerns and rally around a supportive candidate.

     

    The president will not be pressed to answer how he spent four years in office without addressing the ongoing destabilization of our climate or advocating a coherent and ecologically sound energy policy including defending his position on nuclear power and so called clean coal. Nor will he discuss regulatory agency deficiencies in enforcing corporate law and order in an era marked by a corporate crime wave having devastating economic consequences on workers and taxpayers and their savings and pensions. There will be no opportunity for the Hispanic and other relevant communities to speak out on immigration reform even as the Republicans continue to use it as a weapon of political demagoguery.

     

    Add your own concerns, disappointments, and frustrated hopes to this list of what will surely be left off the table during an express-lane primary. The valid disagreements within the Democratic Party, let alone the goals of progressives, will be completely overlooked. The media will gleefully cover the media circus that is sure to be the Republican primaries, magnifying every minor gaffe and carefully cataloguing every iteration and argument of the radical right. The cameras will cover the Democratic side only for orchestrated events, the whiff of scandal, and to offer commentary on how the campaign is positioning itself for the general election.

     

    The summation of this process will be a tediously scripted National Convention, deprived of robust exchange and well-wrought policy. And here the danger is clear: not only will progressive principles past and present be betrayed but large sections of voters will feel bored with and alienated from the democratic candidate. This would not serve the president’s campaign, our goals, or the nation’s needs.

     

    Thankfully, there is another option. This second scenario would allow for robust and exciting discussion and debate during the primary season while posing little risk to the president other than to encourage him take more progressive stands. It would also accomplish the critical task of energizing the Progressive base to turn out on Election Day.

     

    Imagine: A slate of six candidates announces its decision to run in the Democratic primaries. Each of the candidates is recognizable, articulate, and a person of acknowledged achievement. These contenders would each represent a field in which Obama has never clearly staked a progressive claim or where he has drifted toward the corporatist right. These fields would include: labor, poverty, military and foreign policy, health insurance and care, the environment, financial regulation, civil and political rights/empowerment, and consumer protection.

     

    Without primary challengers, President Obama will never have to seriously articulate and defend his beliefs to his own party. Given the dangers our nation faces, that option is unacceptable. The slate is the best method for challenging the president for a number of reasons:

     

    -The slate can indicate that its intention is not to defeat the president (a credible assertion given their number of voting columns) but to rigorously debate his policy stands.

     

    -The slate will collectively give voice to the fundamental principles and agendas that represent the soul of the Democratic Party, which has increasingly been deeply tarnished by corporate influence.

     

    -The slate will force Mr. Obama to pay attention to many more issues affecting many more Americans. He will be compelled to develop powerful, organic, and fresh language as opposed to stale poll-driven “themes.”

     

    -The slate will exercise a pull on Obama toward his liberal/progressive base (in the face of the countervailing pressure from “centrists” and corporatists) and leave that base with a feeling of positive empowerment.

     

    -The slate will excite the Democratic Party faithful and essential small-scale donors, who (despite the assertions of cable punditry) are essentially liberal and progressive.

     

    - A slate that is serious, experienced, and well-versed in policy will display a sobering contrast with the alarmingly weak, hysterical, and untested field taking shape on the right.

     

    -The slate will command more media attention for the Democratic primaries and the positive progressive discussions within the party as opposed to what will certainly be an increasingly extremist display on the right.

     

    -The slate makes it more difficult for party professionals to induce challengers to drop out of the race and more difficult for Mr. Obama to refuse or sidestep debates in early primaries.

     

    The slate, if announced, will receive free legal advice and adequate contributions for all prudent expenses in moving about the country. The paperwork is far simpler than what confronts ballot-access- blocked third party and independent candidates. For the slate will be composed of registered Democrats campaigning inside the Party Primaries.

     

    This opportunity to revive and restore the progressive infrastructure of the Democratic Party must not be missed. A slate of Democratic candidates challenging the president’s substance and record is an historic opportunity. Certainly, President Obama will not be pleased to face a list of primary challengers, but the comfort of the incumbent is far less important than the vitality and strength of his party’s Progressive ideas and ideals. President Obama should emerge from the primary a stronger candidate as a result.

     

    This letter is sent to several dozen accomplished persons known to identify with the Democratic Party voting line for a variety of reasons. We ask that you consider several requests. First, would you consider being a slate candidate after due reflection beyond what may be an immediate no? History has illustrated greater discomforts, material sacrifices and other profiles of courage in our country’s past for a perceived major common good.

     

    Second, if you are not interested in joining as a candidate, would you add your name as an official endorsee of the slate proposal. All endorsements are made as individuals and organizational or institutional affiliations are for identification purposes only. Your endorsement will be a vital signal of support and will help in compiling the strongest slate of candidates possible when we send out the letter to the candidate list, yet to be finalized.

     

    Third, can you suggest accomplished people to contact who may be interested in joining the slate as a candidate in one of the following fields: labor, poverty, military and foreign policy, health insurance and care, the environment, financial regulation, civil and political rights/empowerment, and consumer protection. This can be yourself if you feel it would be appropriate.

     

    Candidates and endorsements will be accepted on a rolling basis. All submissions or additional questions and comments can be directed to Colin O’Neil [email protected] or 703-599-3474. We appreciate your response.

     

    Thank you.

     

    There is quite a bit to absorb in that letter, but the points made are very critical to, as stated in the letter, "...revive and restore the progressive infrastructure of the Democratic Party..."


    ~OGD~

    Comments

    "...revive and restore the progressive infrastructure of the Democratic Party..."

    WHY?

    What a bunch of whitewash -

    "The slate will collectively give voice to the fundamental principles and agendas that represent the soul of the Democratic Party, which has increasingly been deeply tarnished by corporate influence.

    Tarnished? Like we really want to polish this turd?

    The democratic is beyond tarnished, it is corrupt to it's core. The termites have weakened the structural strength and no amount of whitewash is going to keep it standing.

    It is only a shell of it's glorious past .

    "Tear down" this corporate house    

    The Democratic party is already a captive of the corporate power. It's been shackled and neutered.  

    They will only give lip service to get your vote.

    Our country is already in the black hole, already in the grip of corporate power.

    The disease is too far advanced; the nation is dying, we need to cut out the cancerous corporate influence.

    Nader has been fighting corporate power all of his life. The progressives need a fighter


    Thanks for taking the time to comment ...

    I couldn't help but notice that you seemingly took issue with the following statement:

    "...revive and restore the progressive infrastructure of the Democratic Party..."

    To that you asked, "Why?" Who are you asking, me? It's not my words.

    Did you miss where that came from?

    It comes from within the letter that Nader endorses.

    Paragraph 20 Sentence 1:

    "This opportunity to revive and restore the progressive infrastructure of the Democratic Party must not be missed."

    And, if as you say, "The progressives need a fighter..." and, as you also say, "Nader has been fighting corporate power all of his life" and you apparently have the opinion that the points in this letter are "...a bunch of whitewash..." then why would Nader endorse it?

    I am simply attempting to clarify exactly what you mean in your response.

    ~OGD~

     


    Hey OGD, I think I am going to pick Nader's letter of bullshit apart.

    He wrote:

    Misguided negotiations by the Obama Administration over increasing the debt ceiling willingly put our nation’s vital social services on the chopping block while Bush-era tax cuts remain untouched.

    Is this because he would have preferred the government would have shut down? How would this have ushered in new progressive leaders? What he seems to be saying is that our government should be in constant standstill, where no one ever gets anything done... wait a minute how will this help America, how we will get roads fixed, how will we disburse Pell Grants, how will this keep the country moving if not completely forward but at least moving? Nader has no idea, doesn't care either because no matter what happens to regular folks he is just fine.

    Then onto his Primary Challenge BS.. he has no idea how the system works at all, and he isn't even a Democrat, which means he has no standing to accomplish anything, unless of course his is just attempting to wreak havoc one more time and get another Republican elected, which is what I presume is really going on, he seems to think if things get even worse for Americans his position will win out, yet there is no evidence to support his premise, however there is evidence to support the notion it will continue to get worse, hello 2010 congressional elections.

    And then of course there is this:

    The president will not be pressed to answer how he spent four years in office

    Really... it seems this President must address this constantly, including at town halls.

     

     

    Then this:

    Without primary challengers, President Obama will never have to seriously articulate and defend his beliefs to his own party.

    More BS from Ralph, the President has to do this daily, every single time he goes out to talk to Americans, does Nader have his head in the sand? Or is he deliberately trying to get a Republican elected.

    At that point in the letter Nader becomes redundant,  reiterating the points in his letter over and over again. And it still fails to prove anything other than Ralph Nader hearts Republicans.

    Morning OGD! Nader ruffles my feathers doesn't he, but he is a dude I used to admire greatly, especially as a consumer advocate, but now he seems like just a creep.


    ditto


    Thanks for the response...

    From your comment I cannot overlook the fact that the letter has at the very least energized you to the point of responding in your defense of the President's tenure so far.

    That is the point of my posting of this letter. Discussion. It's all about allowing folks to discuss their personal POV no matter where they come down on the issues in the letter.

    And you know, it's quite telling that so far there have been 86 reads yet only you, Resistance, and Dick (sort of) have bothered with making your opinions known.

    We'll just have to wait and see if anyone else wishes to wade into the murky water.

    ~OGD~


    Well, here are my thoughts:

    1. I think a primary challenge is very unlikely. Thus, this letter does not energize me in either a positive nor a negative manner.
    2. Unlike some others here, I'm not convinced that a primary challenge would harm Obama. Rather, I think a (serious) primary challenge would signal that Obama is already harmed. People often point out other cases where a sitting President was primaried and how often he lost the following general election, but I think it's more likely that the primary was a sign that the President was already in trouble rather than a cause of those troubles.
    3. On the other hand, I don't see that a primary does much good, either. I can't remember who wrote it, but one dagblogger rightly pointed out that as a sitting President, Obama is constantly stating his position (implicitly, if not explicitly) and having to put forth concrete proposals on a regular basis. Other candidates have the benefit of being able to merely hand wave. (Remember McCain stating that he had a "plan"?)

    Fear is what keeps these politicians in line.

    I truly believe the only reason,  Roosevelt and the democrats gave us Social Security, is because there was the threat of Socialism.

    Capitalism had failed so many Americans.

    A few years later the capitalists in order to regain control over the Socialist movement sweeping the world, gave a nod to McCarthy, giving us the RED SCARE (fear)

    We got the Civil Rights Act passed, because of fear.

    The democratic party will not move to the left, unless it fears.

    If people continue to vote for the centrists, why should the democratic party move towards the progressive left?

    The squeaky wheel does get the grease.  

    "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."  spoken by a politician who knew, either you give the people a social Security, or risk losing control.

    "Obama is constantly stating his position (implicitly, if not explicitly) and having to put forth concrete proposals on a regular basis."

    REALLY?

    Obama should have done more to help the homeowners. instead of Solyndra.  Instead of Cash for Clunkers, Cash rebates for appliances.

    Change you can believe in? A lot of Americans are lucky if they can rub two nickels together.   


    You wrote:

    I truly believe the only reason,  Roosevelt and the democrats gave us Social Security, is because there was the threat of Socialism.

    Prove it, which of course you cannot, but must at least attempt to prove the propaganda that flows freely from your keyboard. Every time you write BS like this I am going to be here to challenge you. 

    Then you wrote this:

    We got the Civil Rights Act passed, because of fear.

    Really, you don't think it was because the world was changing, because of the many decisions of the Warren Court, you boil everything down to fear, which is trite, unsupportable and again a sloppy analysis utilized to make people believe the government is the enemy and it is not. But that is taken straight from the Republican Handbook of how to win elections isn't it.


    Every time you write BS like this I am going to be here to challenge you. 

    Reminds me of the time when us kids would go to grade school, and when we walked by this particular house, the mad, slobbering dog, would run towards the fence yelping and barking at perceived threats.  

    I think the owners finally put the dog to sleep, so the rest of the neighbors could have some peace.

    Why does it always appear TMC, that when their is a heated dispute on Dagblog ,your always at the center of the problem?.

    Tread lightly kids the mad dog will charge after you.

    utilized to make people believe the government is the enemy and it is not.

    Tell the folks in Birmingham, the government was their friends.

    No amount of your revisionist attempts, will change what really occurred.

    Rosa Parks had enough of you blind folks, telling them "the governments got your back, they're not your enemy.    


    "Obama is constantly stating his position (implicitly, if not explicitly) and having to put forth concrete proposals on a regular basis."

    REALLY?

    Yes, really. Why do I feel that if I stated that the Earth rotated on its axis you would challenge me on that? You might not like his positions (in fact, you regularly point out how much you loathe them), and there's many of his positions I don't like either, but that stuff that's always upsetting you? Those are the positions and proposals that you seem to suggest don't exist. In other news, Obama has two hands, two feet, and has been known to eat food on occasion. Furthermore, critics suggest that he spends several hours asleep while in the White House every single day. In fact, these hours are often likely to overlap with that 3 AM phone call…


    Sleep depravation .........Are you suggesting the mans suffering from sleep depravation?

    Some suggest his policies are an example of a man who lacks the knowledge.

    I know he's probably got a brain, some question the way he uses it. 


    VA, point 2 of yours is very, very interesting, in particular this point

    I think a (serious) primary challenge would signal that Obama is already harmed.

    In part I think you are correct, if there were a primary challenged sanctioned by the Democratic Party or a very powerful Democrat it would signal the President is in real trouble. That was one of the problems during the 1980 election, the President was in real trouble and it wasn't just the Iranian crisis that hurt him, deregulating airlines didn't help him with mainstream Democrats.

    The 1980 election was the first election I could vote in, I was a senior in high school in boarding school at the time, and was very excited about voting, that whole primary challenge thing, but a Kennedy, was devastating to Carter and to his re-election chances, but so were a number of things he did at the time to make people simply vote for a Republican. Interest rates were soaring, they were up around 17% or 18%, we had an oil crisis. He was working hard to put money into R&D for Alternate Renewable Energies but people weren't seeing the benefits of that money. It was a tough time to get a job, really tough, my first job out of high school on the mainland (my first job was in Hawaii during summers where my parents had a house) I made 2.01 an hour, but there were lots of people out of work. I am pretty sure unemployment was over 10% too. So all of that, coupled with a primary challenge and a guy would didn't communicate well with the American public sealed his fate. Reagan on the other hand had great rapport with people, and his party was not fighting him, although they seemed as a whole to have wanted Bush senior and not Reagan, but they got behind him. But the election was weird, it was just a few years after the whole Nixon debacle which should have tainted the Republicans for years to come. It didn't, and why? I don't really know. Personally, I don't want to see another Republican in the executive office unless and until they drop the moral majority BS and quit talking about the government like it is the enemy of America. That just pisses me off to no end.

    As usual I've droned on far to long.


    I kept reading your responses and kept wondering what World, have you been living in?

    I know now, why you are so naïve, you’re perspectives are from the 80’’s

    You’re totally clueless and you will never understand the palpable tension of the 60’s

    Fear brought about the end, of the Vietnam War.

    Fear brought an end to discrimination, ushering in the Civil Rights movement and it’s enactment of laws. America didn’t need another Watts.  

    Some people thought they could eliminate the dissenters of the discriminatory practices, but violence was brewing and FEAR forced a recognition that the people were not going to be passive much longer.   

    Another  example

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Convention

    Fear is what gripped the  

    "1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Illinois, which was fraught with highly emotional battles between conventioneers and Vietnam war protesters and a notable outburst by Chicago mayor Richard J. Daley. Other confrontations between various groups, such as the Yippies and members of the Students for a Democratic Society, and the Chicago police in city parks, streets and hotels marred this convention. Following the 1968 convention, in which many reformers had been disappointed in the way that Vice President Hubert Humphrey, despite not having competed in a single primary, easily won the nomination over Senators Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern ……… a commission headed by Senator McGovern reformed the Democratic Party's nominating process to increase the power of primaries in choosing delegates in order to increase the democracy of the process. ……. After the "ugly" conventions of 1968 and 1972, the parties realized it was in their interests to show a unified party to the nation during the convention, and to try to eliminate any dissent. ………. the networks have cut back their coverage significantly, which in turn has forced the parties to manage what is televised even more closely."

    FEAR is what forced the change.

    SHOCKING ISNT IT; the two corporate parties want to manage what is televised; (We don’t need no spoilers disrupting our party) Corporate controlled MSM does not want it to be seen.

    The Revolution will not be televised, Dissent will not be televised.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention

    The convention was held during a year of violence, political turbulence, and civil unrest, particularly riots in more than 100 cities[3] following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. on April 4.[4] The convention also followed the assassination of Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Robert F. Kennedy, who had been shot on June 5.[5] Both Kennedy and Senator Eugene McCarthy had been running against the eventual Democratic presidential nominee Hubert Humphrey."

    The Democratic Party fears a primary, for fear they’ll lose control.

    The electorate fears there will be no primary, thereby losing control.

     

    You and Obama should FEAR, ……the electorate is not satisfied with Obama's ineffectual policies.

    The percentage that is blaming Obama has increased dramatically. It is only you koolaid drinking bots, who are too blind to see he’s got a real problem.

    He should have helped the homeowners who are suffering.

    You better fear an angry electorate who was ignored. Reap what you sowed Obama.  

    Here's a most recent display of his arrogant, condescending manner.

    Obama speech

    "Take off your bedroom slippers, put on your marching shoes!" "Shake it off! Stop complaining, stop grumbling, stop crying! We are going to press on. We've got work to do,"

    Take off our bedroom slippers? Many wish they had a bedroom.

    Shake it off? What the cold night air?

    Maybe you’d like to call us dirty F hippies too?

    If he'd have done the work of helping homeowners,we wouldn't be in this fix

    Stick it Obama, We homeowners who have lost our nest eggs, under this administration, aren’t about to put on our marching shoes for Obama. 

    You were warned, You should have helped the homeowners.  


    Hello ... Hello...

    Did you overlook my response to your first comment yesterday?

    In your initial comment yesterday I couldn't help but notice that you seemingly took issue with the following statement:

    "...revive and restore the progressive infrastructure of the Democratic Party..."

    To that you asked, "Why?" Who are you asking, me? It's not my words.

    Did you miss where that came from?

    It comes from within the letter that Nader endorses.

    Paragraph 20 Sentence 1:

    "This opportunity to revive and restore the progressive infrastructure of the Democratic Party must not be missed."

    And, if as you say, "The progressives need a fighter..." and, as you also say, "Nader has been fighting corporate power all of his life" and you apparently have the opinion that the points in this letter are "...a bunch of whitewash..." then why would Nader endorse it?

    Or ... Are you basically saying that Nader is part and parcel of this "whitewash" you mentioned?

    I am simply attempting to clarify exactly what you mean in your response.

    ~OGD~


    OGD, I do not wish to get into an argument with you. We've been down that path before. I respect you and your abilities.   

    If Nader is behind this; I can only assume, he's desperate or senses the Nation is in peril, if we don't do something sooner rather than later.

    Otherwise; why would he work within the party, he most recently trashed?

    I am very fearful the World financial market is dying and were all about to go down with it.

    If he has now recanted his strong opposition to the corrupt, two parties, I am not so sure I can support him?  

    As a fighter against corporate power, I have known no other with his creds.

    Maybe he's grown tired, of taking on the powerful and for what reward?

    Only to be badmouthed for saying the emperor has no clothes.

    Maybe he senses, if you cant beat them join them, why take the heat.

    Only to be remembered as the corporate fighter; who was rejected by those, who only gave lip service, to the need to take on corporate power.    


    If you really want to support a permanent break from having a two-party corporate-toady system, you must support the alternative vote. I hate to sound like a broken record, but it's the only way. It's ironic that you're a strong proponent of third party voting but think that supporting the alternative vote is a pipe dream. It might be a pipe dream, but it's also the only way we're going to change the system. So, either give up and admit you'll always have to vote for the lesser evil, or figure out where the solution is. I think that the alternative vote is an issue that people from all sides of the political spectrum can get behind.


    VA.......I did review the links you provided, the other day.

    They were excellent, I really appreciate that you share these types of thought provoking links.

    But as I responded to you earlier,  after I reviewed them.

    The two Corporate parties WILL NEVER ALLOW  "The alternative vote", it would spell the end of their rule.


    I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the corporate parties would not "allow" the alternative vote. However, I think it's more likely that they would allow the alternative vote than that they would allow a third party to win, even though the former makes the latter makes more likely. So, what I'm suggesting is that either you shift your focus towards bringing the alternative vote, or you suggest a more viable approach. Throwing up one's hands and saying "they're both the same" is not useful, or to the degree there is any utility in it whatsoever, it's in bringing us to ask, "what do we do about it?" Throwing our vote away does more harm than good (because they're not exactly the same). Supporting the alternative vote does more good than harm.


    VA.... reedited response  

     I think it's more likely that they would allow the alternative vote than that they would allow a third party to win.

    EXACTLY    .... "That they would allow"  Who would allow; the corporations?

    As long as they could control; and they will control

         Alternative voices?

                      ^

    "Of course, ^   Socialism is violently denounced by the capitalist press and by all the brood of subsidized contributors to magazine literature, but this only confirms the view that the advance of Socialism is very properly recognized by the capitalist class as the one cloud upon the horizon which portends an end to the system in which they have waxed fat, insolent and despotic through the exploitation of their countless wage-working slaves.  http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs

    Most information the masses hear or read, is controlled by the Corporations.

    Kristol, and Safire, and all of the other subsidized contributors on the myriad of Sunday talk shows and the like; knows which side, butters their bread.

    Never bite the hand that feeds you.  ( Keith Olbermann comes to mind )

    "Al Gore is hopping mad that his Current TV was dumped from Rupert Murdoch's Sky Italia before Keith Olbermann debuted in America with his strong brew of ...

    http://newsbusters.org/taxonomy/term/185

    Newsbusters a group dedicated to "Combating the Liberal Media Bias" 

    The left is biased and the Right isn't ??????

    Let’s play Good Cop/ Bad Cop, …..giving the appearance that the people have a choice, then we could avoid, giving the people a viable alternative.  They'll believe voting for the lesser of the two evils is a choice,

    "We gave you a choice, what more do you want us capitalists to give you, that wont diminish our control?    

    Anybody but a Corporate hack need not apply, YOU WILL NOT GET NAME RECOGNITION, YOU WILL BE BANNED FROM THE NATIONAL DEBATES

    (Nader comes to mind) 

    You think this corporate sponsored group would also control the "Alternative Vote" you're promoting?

    We used to have a Free Press where OUR government protected us, from large Corporations so they couldn't control the whole spectrum. Not anymore.

    The capitalist/corporatism bought and paid, to wrestle away that control  

    The capitalists fought hard to get control and now that they have it, good luck getting an "Alternative Vote", that wasn't sanctioned by the two capitalist parties.  

    Corporations now can give you the tabloid at the grocery check out and you can hear the same story on the radio, driving to work, come home and see the same tabloid story on the TV. 

    The MSM is owned by the Corporations. You will only hear that which they want you to hear.

    "How dare PBS get tax payer money, let them beg for support, maybe they'll eventually go away, taking with them the "Alternative Viewpoint";  .....the corporations DON'T want you to hear.


     

    Resistance . . .
     
    See my post in the thread below at 2:39 pm about the latest "third-party" (ahem...) organizations to come on the scene.
     
    ~OGD~
    .

    OGD     I will look later (early AM), I'm heading out the door.


    Hey Resistance . . .

    On this particular subject, I'm not looking to get in any arguments with anyone.

    Thanks for responding to my query. I truely was looking for some clairification on your initial comment.

    Your response here has done that.

    ~OGD~


    OGD, I am energized because I don't want a Republican elected, and whenever Ralph acts, Republicans benefit. But no doubt does he energize me! You are correct!


    My grandson doesn't have a clue who Nader is. Hmmmm does the letter really matter?

    Other New Third Parties . . .

     
    With no endorsement intended, here are two additional "parties" and the latest to join in the long line of third-party organizations. At least take the time to immerse yourself in finding out the background on the following two third-party organizations:
     

    Americans Select Party (actual site)

     
    And here's the Wiki background: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_Elect
     
    No Labels Party (actual site)
     
    And here's the Wiki background: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Labels
     
    On first glance, it appears to my eye that these two organizations are steeped in the current political landscape of the Washington DC swamp, in addition to most likely attending the same dances with the same corporate puppet-miesters and string pullers.
     
    Buyers Beware...
     
    ~OGD~