Diatribune - unitary executive - Comments

Don't worry, Kerry! Jacob

epppie — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 21:09:51 -0600

Don't worry, Kerry! Jacob and I are just having some fun!

But I do mean what I say, too. Of course, I see your point of view, and at one time I agreed with it. In some ways I still do. But I believe that many Dems are succombing to scare tactics. I think the Corporatist Masters of our politicians think that when they terrify progressives with extreme right wing bogey-men and -women, they create a no lose situation where the only thing in question is whether they get half a loaf or a whole loaf. That difference used to be a big one. But with each passing election, that half loaf difference gets smaller and smaller. Consider - why is it that a Sarah Palin can kneecap a Barack Obama? Is it because Sarah Palin is such a powerful and charismatic figure? I don't think so. I think she's every bit the two-bit charlatan she seems to be. No, the problem, in my view, is that Barack Obama really has little to offer. He's a ghost. He's a paper cut out.

And taken all-together, the bogeyman and the bogeywoman and the paper cutout of Hope and Change are able to keep progressives from realizing their own strength. Now I'm only one person and one vote. I can't make millions of people back Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney. But I'm making that walk and I think that maybe it's just possible that this time a lot of other people will too. The spectacle created by Palin vs. Obama is likely to turn a lot of people off, and many people have already made it clear in polls that they aren't very happy with either party. I wonder when was the last time there was so much frustration in the country with the political process, as it is today.

One wind of change could rearrange that political process in surprising ways, it seems to me.

For whatever it's worth, I

kerry — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:50:59 -0600

For whatever it's worth, I think that keeping repugs out of office matters, although I would agree that replacing them with most of today's dems doesn't give us a substantial difference in policy. However, it does matter somewhat to the less fortunate in our society, because dems will raise minimum wage ( though not near enough to make a living) and repugs won't, dems will extend unemployment benefits (though not enough to keep you out of bankruptcy in most cases) and repugs won't, dems will attempt to feed poor children in school, repugs won't and we can't afford the supreme court judges that repugs nominate and dems put into office. I truly understand where you are coming from and share in your frustration, but though neither party supports true progressive ideals, the dems may be a little less regressive. If the repugs had their way they would eliminate all social spending. We MUST keep them out of office and right now there isn't a strong third party to help us do that so we must rely on dems to take the seats away until we have can generate enthusiasm for a real progressive alternative, And that may never happen.

But, you know, I'm not the

epppie — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:39:04 -0600

But, you know, I'm not the least interested in replacing Pubs with Dems. There's no signifigant difference in my opinion. I'm very sorry that so many progressives are caught up in an effort that I think is a total waste (replacing Pubs with Dems). Of course, they often seem to think the same of me - that my third party interests are a waste. And there we are. I accept that to you, it's (apparently) important to elect as many Dems as possible. So you go ahead and pursue your windmill and I'll have at mine.

Also, I don't care about hanging people. Your imagery is marvelously picturesque, as always, but beside the point as far as I am concerned. I'm not concerned about the fantasies of revenge you evoke. I'm concerned about the damage done to the Constitution by not impeaching, damage that I think is difficult to undo by methods other than impeachment.

But, it's also true, I think, that by choosing not to impeach George Bush, the Dems have implicitly validated his actions, and by doing that, they have deprived themselves of the arguments that might theoretically have given them election victory, while also shaping a future for them as an actual opposition party, instead of as just an echo party. As it is, the Dems are pretty much stuck with arguments along the lines of "I'd do everything the same, only better." Such arguments come across as elitist and play right into the standard GOP playbook. That's a playbook that McCain and Palin will be clubbing Obama and Biden over the head with for the next couple of months, and so will every Pub in the country so, who is running against a Dem. So your argument that we need to forget about impeachment so that we can concentrate on winning elections (I hope I'm not mistating your view) is - even taken on it's face value - wrong, in my opinion.

And when it comes to villains retiring quietly, you might consider that W is a young man still and is unlikely to retire or to be quiet. Ditto Condi, Rove, and many others in this administration. And you might think about Kissinger and the enormous influence he's had in his 'quiet retirement'.

But yeah, let's just sweep everything under the rug. Won't we all feel soooo much better then?

"Hang 'em all, and let God

Jacob Freeze — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:10:24 -0600

"Hang 'em all, and let God sort out the guilty from the innocent."

(I just love that quote!)

While I'm still channeling Judge Roy Bean and Robespierre, I may as well mention the educational value of skipping a preliminary phase of removing the criminals from office, and instead erecting a makeshift gallows on the floor of the Senate, and hanging the current gang on the spot where their crimes were committed.

But it's also important to remember that there's always a little blowback after a general clean-up by gallows or guillotine, and Edmund Burke vowed eternal enmity against the French Revolution for ungallantly executing the madwoman Marie Antoinette along with the rest of the aristo rabble.

So maybe it's better to wait it out, elect Barack Obama, and even forego dispensing "justice" after the fact.

At this point I'll be satisfied if the Republicans cease to be in a postition to commit massive crimes against humanity, and if a few evil old men live out their twilight years in peaceful obscurity, so be it.

Otherwise we could stir up something like a civil war with red states playing the role of the Vendée, and wind up with a worse mess than what we have now.

In my opinion, the ongoing

epppie — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:31:54 -0600

In my opinion, the ongoing (manufactured) crisis with Russia IS the October Surprise. It could easily be combined with a false flag terror attack, though, if it doesn't seem sufficient in itself to keep McCain ahead.

It's interesting to read that so many architects and engineers have come forward to question the official 911 story. That seems to me to be key threshold - similar to the way the concerns of computer scientists and engineers lends credence to Stolen Election concerns.

Well, for starters, we COULD

epppie — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 09:33:07 -0600

Well, for starters, we COULD just remove them all from office.

As Judge Roy Bean used to

Jacob Freeze — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 08:04:41 -0600

As Judge Roy Bean used to say...

"Hang 'em all, and let God sort out the guilty and the innocent!"

Not to mention the Democrats

epppie — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:23:47 -0600

Not to mention the Democrats who have been in on Bush's various crimes and abuses, to varying degrees.

Consistency demands that if

Jacob Freeze — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:40:01 -0600

Consistency demands that if Republicans are tried for war crimes according to the Nuremberg paradigm, a sizable crowd of Democrats should have been hanged for the slaughter of millions of Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, and 58,000 Americans who lost their lives for the lies that Johnson and MacNamara and Rusk and Bundy sold the American public about the Gulf of Tonkin, and all the rest of it.

The only one of those beasties still alive is Robert MacNamara, now 92 years old, and and maybe hanging him would be some consolation to all the wandering spirits who departed from this sweet old world because of his lies.

But I haven't noticed any Democrats selling tickets to that hanging.

I think impeachment and

epppie — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:48:13 -0600

I think impeachment and criminal prosecution are separate, though related, issues. Of the two, impeachment is the more important right now. The very existence of the Constitition as anything but a dead letter is at stake.

Yes, I think impeachment advocation would be a poison pill for Obama right now, but that's only because (in my opinion) he's ignored or opposed impeachment up until now. He would not be a credible advocate.

Good piece, Mr Concept.

epppie — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:16:59 -0600

Good piece, Mr Concept. But...

1) Obama will never proclaim any truth,

2) somone (Nader) already is,

3) the EU now too is totally controlled by the same multinational corporate power controlling the US (Brown, Sarkozy, Merkel, Berlusconi).

Why are Democrats Afraid to

misterconcept — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:07:18 -0600

Why are Democrats Afraid to Speak the Truth?

The Democratic campaign enjoyed a spectacular and spirited convention climaxed by a phenomenal speech by Senator Obama. The McCain campaign followed with a phenom of its own with the addition of Governor Sarah Palin to the ticket. Prior to that spontaneous decision, John McCain was experiencing difficulty attracting an audience. In fact, with the prearranged agenda including Bush and Cheney, they would likely had difficulty filling the convention hall. This situation was remedied by the creation of the John McCain traveling burlesque show. Hopefully, the same people who support Sarah Palin are those who supported Sanjaya right up until it was time to declare him an American Idol. While the Republican propaganda machine is frantically fabricating a history for Palin, scrambling like canaries in a cage startled by the appearance of a cat, Barack Obama himself appears tired, bored, deflated, and even defeated. It’s time for the Democratic Party to employ a novel strategy in the political arena. It’s time to tell the truth.

It is a foregone conclusion that multi-national corporate interests own the federal government lock, stock, and barrel, with Big Oil as the majority shareholder. George Bush is a president with no leverage over these entities in fact; he invited them to the party. When Bush proclaims, “we must protect American interests abroad,” it is these corporate interests to which he refers. The lobbyists who represent these interests have written any and all legislation passed within the last eight years. The Republican hierarchy has embedded within it, individuals in key positions who steer all government policies to favor these groups. If John McCain and the Republican Party remain in power, this situation will not change. Furthermore, if some tragedy were to befall McCain, Palin has left no doubt in anyone’s mind that she is completely capable of reading the commands issued by these individuals. While the McCain/Palin Campaign portrays itself as the reform ticket, these same multi-nationals are pouring money into the effort directly and through 527 provisions to insure its success. This phenomenon can be compared to the scenario in which a drug kingpin who has already bought-off key players in law enforcement and the judiciary, finances the campaign of the ‘law and order’ candidate who is secretly also on his payroll.

This reality is understood throughout the world (except among the religious right which is, by the way, neither) so much so that the European Union was formed in large part to insulate governments on that continent from this same corruption. Any and all candidates running for political office in democracies throughout Europe who have ties to our corrupt administration are handily voted down. The impact of this unified agreement has resulted in a blockade of many American products to a consumer base of nearly half a billion and the subsequent loss of countless American jobs. The distrust of American enterprise has facilitated a rapid increase in the demand for Russian oil and natural gas causing the current tension between the oil friendly Bush Administration and the neo-capitalist Russian government. It is no wonder that the Republican Party will never support successful programs for public education. It is to its advantage for its core electorate to remain oblivious to its true priorities and their consequences. Anyone interested in the future of these great United States must focus on the interview in which Dick Cheney openly admitted that the Republican Party, “will say what we need to, to get elected,” and then pursue, with reckless indifference, the policies agreed to prior to the campaign.

Barack Obama must reinvigorate his campaign by simply implementing the truth. In plain terminology, Obama must educate the American people in how it works, how it got this way, and how it can be fixed. He must loudly proclaim that this Republican Administration has not only undermined the Democratic process through trickery and fraud, but has nullified the legislative process by expanding the powers of the presidency which has led to the paralysis of Congress. America is not only crying for change but is also starving for truth. Somebody has to go first.

A chilling moment for me was

epppie — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 08:32:44 -0600

A chilling moment for me was hearing Rachel Maddow, supposedly a progressive champion (right?), say - back when it looked like Bloomberg would run - that she thought he was pretty ok, or something like that. This was AFTER the mass arrests, harrassments and illegal detentions of the RNC.

That was an "oh sh*t!" moment for me.

And I don't think it can be said often enough that this is the way Nazi-ism happened. People who warned about the seriousness of the direction Hitler was taking Germany in were shushed up as extremists, alarmists - the same kind of thing we've been hearing for years in America. We've been told not to make such a big deal out of every little thing, in effect.

Consider - if they can pre-emptive invade the houses of potential peace protestors at the Convention cities, they can do it in every city in America. They only need an excuse, and it obviously doesn't have to be much of one. And I think it's important to observe that they apparently knew exactly which houses to attack. Now we have a pretty good idea of exactly what they are doing with all that domestic spying.

And I wonder - was there even one SWAT team member who thought, maybe just to himself or herself, 'is what we are doing right?'
Was there one person shooting tear gas into a crowd who stopped to think to himself or herself 'should I really be doing this to my fellow citizens?'