Phantom Of The Neocons

Here's a threat if I ever heard one-Bill Kristol has stated that Bush might bomb Iran if Obama is going to win (which he is most certainly going to do, despite "liberal" media attempts to support poor Ol' John McCain). So, if we don't vote for John McCain, we'll have war with Iran, and if we do elect McCain, we'll have war with Iran as well.
I wonder what they'd do if Nader won?

Check Your Calendar, Know Your History

In a question and answer period on a campaign stop, Hillary Clinton stated:

“I started criticizing the war in Iraq before he did. So, I’m well aware that his entire campaign is premised on a speech he gave in 2002 and I give him credit for making that speech. But that was not a decision.”

In 2002, the war had not yet begun. Millions of Americans were opposed to it then, but Senator Clinton voted for it. How can that be considered criticizing the war before Senator Obama?
This is the problem I have with Clinton, her whole campaign has been a slew of misstatements. How can you trust her to do anything she is promising when she keeps making these statements that when closely examined, prove to be entirely false?
While I would prefer to have Nader in the White House, if we are to have a democrat, why have one who's going to be a constant target of the right wing noise machine?

The Hypocrisy Of Some People

When Ralph Nader announced his candidacy, the cry across the "progressive" blogosphere was almost palpable. "Spoiler" was one term used, "determined to put the Republicans in the White House four more years" was another. But, more often than not, the term "egomaniac" was thrust upon him by people who take offense to negative labels. Sure, Ralphie's as unelectable as Dennis Kucinich, but who can argue against his agenda and still refer to themselves as "progressives"?

Adopt single payer national health insurance
Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget
No to nuclear power, solar energy
Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime
and corporate welfare
Open up the Presidential debates
Adopt a carbon pollution tax
Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East
Impeach Bush/Cheney
Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law
Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax
Put an end to ballot access obstructionism
Work to end corporate personhood

All the above issues are "off the table" for the corpocratic candidates, Nader, on the other hand think these are more important than flag lapel pins, supporting a never ending expensive war, or any other "issue" either candidate has put forward.
But what I find most ironic is the label "egomaniac" being thrown at Nader by Clinton supporters. Clinton is trailing Obama in the most recent poll, the mathematical improbability of Mrs Clinton securing enough delegates to win the nomination, with Obama picking up more delegates in Texas, yet Sen. Clinton has vowed to stay in the race until the end. She has as much of a chance of winning as Nader, yet she is allowed to remain in the race unscathed by those brainwashed by the Clinton cult of personality?
These very same people have vowed to vote for McCain if Hillary doesn't get the nomination, a kind of 'I'm-taking-my-vote-and-going-home' from people who feel that despite having enjoyed the plush front runner status since 2006, the media hasn't treated Sen. Clinton fairly (like digging up video of her trip to Bosnia, which shows us she will be as able a liar as her predecessor if elected). I guess that makes them "determined to put the Republicans in the White House four more years", the very thing they have accused Mr. Nader of doing.
But don't get me wrong, I'm with Mr. Nader, who thinks Senator Clinton should stay in the race. Then, when your party's all broken and bleed ing by a real egomaniac, you'll have no other choice but to go with the only candidate who isn't all about themselves.

The Continuously Clueless Candidate

It's the old fallback political position, when caught in a lie, always claim you "misspoke". No, I'm not talking about Hillary Clinton, I'm talking about John McCain. Last week he stated that Iran was aiding alQaeda in Iraq, which would be sorta like the Church of England backing the IRA, but a doddering old fool can be forgiven, as long as he's not, you know, running for the president of the United States.
Now he's alluding to an audiotape made by Osama Bin Laden about Iraq, saying they both agree on "Iraq as a training field for jihad". How nice. A guy who's dead as dirt and a guy who's as old as dirt agree on something. Except they don't.

"We're succeeding. I don't care what anybody says. I've seen the facts on the ground,"

the continually clueless candidate commented. That must have happened right before Sadr militia fighters battled troops in four Iraq cities. Yes, senator, tell us again how that surge is working. Just as well as your brilliant plan for helping the economy. America has spent the last eight years with a lying clueless president more interested in starting wars and handing out tax cuts to those who don't really need them, than he is in doing something for the other ninety-nine per cent of the people. I don't think we can stand even one more year.

You Have Been Played

The US is concerned because China has increased it's defense budget by 17 percent because it's unclear as to what China's intentions are. Even with the Chinese increase, it is still but a fraction of what we spend on our defense budget ourselves. We spend nearly as much as the rest of the world combined does on our military, and yet, we are still worried about national security in this election.
The economy is slipping into a recession, the dollar is falling as the price of oil rises, and all any of our presidential candidates can use to mobilize voters is fear. Not fear that the economy is in rubble, but fear of attacks from people with no standing armies on the other side of the world. People, you have been played.
Since we are outspending the rest of the world on security, we should be fairly secure, whether it's a high noon or three o'clock in the morning. If we are not, than we are spending way too much money on a system with no guarantees. The US is involved in two wars, fighting the alleged enemy, which has not made of safer than we were before the wars, and has, in fact attracted more people to the cause of the "Islamofascist". These wars, which were supposed to be relatively cheap(around $60 billion, according to administration officials) has actually cost us trillions of dollars. They are a drain on our economy and yet not one single presidential front runner has suggested we end these boondoggled quagmires.
There is one candidate who thinks we should cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget, or that we should reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East. Unfortunately, the nation of television-watchers, with their minds turned to mush from being fed a diet of constant fear are being herded like lambs to slaughter by the corpocracy's lesser of two evil strategies that will have people actually not voting for a decent candidate with good ideas, but against a candidate with whom they do not like.
Suckers.

Clash Of Cults

I've been amusing myself lately reading the comments sections at various blogs such as this one or this one. The comments are sharply divided with the Clinton camp calling the Obama camp a "cult", which I find to be hypocritical. The Clinton followers are just as cult-like, whereas the Obama cult is more like a New Age cult, the Clinton cult shares the same scorched earth politics as Scientology.
Both cult of personalities fail to recognize there is no difference between the two!
Hillary Clinton recently rapped Barack Obama for saying he is anti-Nafta, while also reassuring Canada. Guess what? she did it too. It is at this point I begin to wonder: what fucking difference does it make whether or not the fuckwad in the White House lying to us is a Democrat or a Republican? These people will say anything to get elected and then find ways to screw the taxpaying citizens in order to divert more money to the corpocracy, so they can get more funding to win more elections. The rest of us are all just wallets to them, and they know that we probably have a couple dollars floating around in there that rightfully should be theirs.
That's why I've decided to support Nader for president. Sure, I know, he won't win, and his candidacy will probably help the Republicans hold the White House, but really, what's the fucking difference whether the lying shitheel in the Oval Office is a Democrat or a Republican, they're still a lying shitheel.And we all will lose.

There Is An Answer

I'm sick of the religion pandering shitheels. And believe me when I tell you that Obama is no Messiah, Lew. He's like every other politician: dishonest as they make 'em. If you think he's much different from McCain or Clinton, you're fooling yourself.

That quote came from dbk in response to yesterday's post, and I will say it here: he is exactly correct. What with the Democrats ready to cave-in to Bush on immunity for telecoms who broke the law (under Bush's orders), the difference between the two parties is quite evident. The Republicans will come right out and tell what evil fucks they are and the Democrats will pretend that they care (just enough to gain your support) and then go ahead and do the will of the unitary executive.
I am not a Democrat. I do not support either Clinton or Obama, (although I will say I favor Obama, even though I know that if Hillary wins, I'd have more fodder for my posts, sort of like an unfunny comedian who voted for Bush because he's the type of idiot who's an easy target) because, as I have said elsewhere, when the Democrats win the White House (and they will, or hide their faces in shame forever for losing to John McCain), those on the left will be placed in the uncomfortable position of Defending their candidate, much the way that there are bloggers on the right who still defend Bush.
For the past seven years, we've had a politician who exploited the ignorant fears of the masses to institute despicable, immoral and unconstitutional agendas. I saw in Senator Clinton's statements about Senator Obama's religious beliefs the same cynicism. Is this the "change" she is claiming to bring to America? The previous post was satire, the use of mockery to ridicule something that I consider to be wrong. I was not defending Obama, nor do I drink the Obama Kool-Aid. I merely feel that in a democracy, for two families to control the executive office for nearly a quarter century is not much of a democracy at all. And if you really wanted to see change-

Vote Nader!!