Diatribune - Republicans - Comments

Well said.

epppie — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 04:13:02 -0600

Well said.

The Pubs know what a

epppie — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 20:00:36 -0600

The Pubs know what a horrible joke Palin is as a candidate. But so was W. And they just don't care.

Sounds like they're thinking

epppie — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:43:35 -0600

Sounds like they're thinking ahead to the next Senate campaign.

Actually, I think no one in

epppie — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:45:07 -0600

Actually, I think no one in the race has more demonstrated ability to build a national following and to build a movement than Nader. The whole consumer power movement has, to some extent, grown from his activities and organizational efforts. Let's not forget who this guy is - a pillar of the progressive movement, someone who would be remembered as a great reformer even if he'd never run for President. He has a resume no one else can touch.

That said, I have been puzzled by Nader's seeming unwillingness to build movement, in connection with his Presidential runs. And I agree with you that third party runs founder and falter when they are built strictly around a personality. On the other hand, there may be method in Nader's madness. Maybe, slowly but surely, he is inspiring a movement, a movement that doesn't need him n order to persist and to continue to evolve, precisely because while he is persuasive and even entertaining, in my opinion, he doesn't energize a crowd in the way we expect politicians to. See, in my opinion, that kind of crowd-rousing is sort of cheap, sort of cheerleader, pep-rally stuff. Palin's speech was the epitomy of that approach to oratory, but I see Kucinich's oratory as being along the same lines, only with more correct ideology and factology.

All the same, there is some justice to your points, as I understand it. I would put it this way; Nader needs to figure out a way to get himself over the ten percent threshold in the polls and do it soon. This is his third campaign. If he hasn't figured out a few ideas about how to do it by now, it's time for him to stop running and concentrate on movement building.

He has not in anyway

kerry — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:25:40 -0600

He has not in anyway demonstrated that he can build a national following. He has had ten years. He does not generate much enthusiasm or energy when he speaks and that matters. Did you see the speech Kucinich gave at the convention? I think he would have real appeal to the working class. But he would have to be committed to building a party rather than running for president. The reason third parties don't last in this country is that they are generally built around a person; T. Roosevelt, G. Wallace, R. Perot instead of a grassroots movement based on ideology. For a third party to be built and sustained it needs to be built from the ground up by organizing the working class with the sole intent of building a party not running for president. I just think that Kucinich is a better representative both in terms of ideology and delivery to do that if he was willing to seek something greater than himself.

I've been thinking that I'd

epppie — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:57:45 -0600

I've been thinking that I'd like to see Kucinich get behind Nader. I think it would be consistent with his positions and could really help energize the Nader campaign. As I see it, the problem with Kucinich is that he's too comfortable as a Dem Party gadfly. Sooner or later both he and Ron Paul, if they are serious about the things they say, are just going to have to jump on the third party bandwagon, it seems to me.

What troubles you about Nader?

Not so much. We don't

kerry — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 11:24:18 -0600

Not so much. We don't disagree about the third party. We only disagree about Nader. I don't believe he can build the kind of party we need. I would love to see Dennis Kucinich start a third party. I could get behind that. I think that he was the only person who demonstrated real progressive values in the race.

That's why I think the only

epppie — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 10:41:24 -0600

That's why I think the only direction to go now is third party, preferably Nader, who understands the way Corporatism has corrupted the Two-Parties-That-Are-Really-One AND the Press.

I know we disagree on that.

I agree. Both the dems and

kerry — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 10:26:46 -0600

I agree. Both the dems and the press have been giving Bush a free ride. I still remember how the press and dems went after Nixon. They were merciless. I am still trying to figure out what happened here. But most of the blame seems to lie with corporate America. They control the press and they overtly bribe everybody, dems and repugs alike.

It's that failing upwards

epppie — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 10:12:36 -0600

It's that failing upwards thing that was mentioned in another diatribe. The Repubicans seem to have perfected it. I still can't quite figure out how it works. Except that I think it has a lot to do with Dem collusion. How else does on explain the fact that Bush seems to have had the most disaster filled presidency in history, and has earned the lowest popularity numbers in history, and has already been designated the Worst President Ever by most, I suspect. His presidency is one that most of the population seems to be longing for the end of. Yet has he even experienced being a Lame Duck? Even the strongest presidents have been lame ducks.
But somehow, the worst president in history has not. How does that happen?

I say it doesn't happen without an opposition party that isn't really in opposition, and a 'free press' that's not free, except nominally.

I fear that there are a lot

epppie — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 09:34:07 -0600

I fear that there are a lot of those in politics (and in positions of 'leadership' generally). Because we associate authority with power and not with service, folks who rise up through our various hierarchies seem to be those most interested in power - ie. sociopaths.

He's a freaking sociopath.

curmudgette — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 08:56:51 -0600

He's a freaking sociopath. I'd bet money on it.

Another way to look at it is

epppie — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 08:54:26 -0600

Another way to look at it is that Cheney's been willing to do the dirty work, from Operation Condor, to the Iran/Contra coverup, to Plamegate. Nothing's too Dark for Dick Cheney, it seems.

Cheney is another study in

curmudgette — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 07:25:46 -0600

Cheney is another study in failure; although his failure, unlike Fiorina's, not the subject of academic study... yet.

The Cheney jinx first manifested itself at the presidential level back in 1969, when Richard Nixon appointed him to his first job in the executive branch. It surfaced again in 1975, when Gerald Ford made Cheney his chief of staff and then -- with Cheney's help -- lost the 1976 election. George H.W. Bush, having named Cheney secretary of defense, was defeated for re-election in 1992. The ever-canny Ronald Reagan was the only Republican president since Eisenhower who managed to serve two full terms. He is also the only one not to have appointed Dick Cheney to office.

This pattern of misplaced confidence in Cheney, followed by disastrous results, runs throughout his life -- from his days as a dropout at Yale to the geopolitical chaos he has helped create in Baghdad. Once you get to know his history, the cycle becomes clear: First, Cheney impresses someone rich or powerful, who causes unearned wealth and power to be conferred on him. Then, when things go wrong, he blames others and moves on to a new situation even more advantageous to himself.

"Cheney's manner and authority of voice far outstrip his true abilities," says Chas Freeman, who served under Bush's father as ambassador to Saudi Arabia. "It was clear from the start that Bush required adult supervision -- but it turns out Cheney has even worse instincts. He does not understand that when you act recklessly, your mistakes will come back and bite you on the ass."

What I think is interesting

epppie — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 22:34:25 -0600

What I think is interesting is that a blogger who doesn't seem to have very clear ideas about the nature of government or about the invasion of Iraq ends up writing for the WaPo.