My point is that the “left” YOU”talk” about is non-existent. I’ve offered some thoughts on what the could be called a variety of American left. You on the other keeping yapping about the “left” as the reason for just about every issue this gigantic imperialistic empire has unleashed. It’s a massive Orwellean joke you weave, DB.

I know full well where the term “left” came from and it has been used, over-used and abused. What makes it problematic is that it has been beaten lifeless by the pundents, and the politicans. it is like calling Walmart a Green business.

When a term has been used as a ping pong to dismiss, marginalize and corrupt ideas and action, then it is time to throw it out. When John McCain stands across from Obama and calls him a radical leftist, than we know the term has no meaning left in it.

And your use of it only adds insult to injury. No American War has ever been ended by any group, except by the powers that started it.

Which is why I’ve argued that one cannot go head to head with the empire. Creating a new narrative from the dominant American exceptionalist one (however that one is positioned by Dems or Repubs) is how change can happen.

I suspect collapse will bring this discussion to an end. How we come out of it will depend on that narrative and the ability for it to connect with peoples lives. Calling it left and right won’t matter one iota.

True. Obama has also talked about attacking Pakistan and Iran and he buys into Bush’s “war on terror” nonsense and he buys into the official 911 story/lies. He’s already help Bush shred what’s little remains of the US Constitution particularly with Obama’s FISA vote. And he actively worked for bailing out Wall Street.

Those things (above) just for starters.

I hear the Dem kool-aid drinkers saying how they will “hold Obama’s feet to the fire.” What drugs are these people on?

That “hold his feet to the fire” nonsense has worked splendidly since 2000 hasn’t it, particularly with the Wall Street bailout vote where the majority of so-called Dems vote for the bail out and the majority of Repugs did not. The so-called Dems said to us all: Fuk you, we will do as we want FOR Bush. And that’s what the “Dems” have done to us repeatedly since 2000. Yet some people are STILL going to support them and their candidates? That’s clearly the definition of a dysfunctional abuse relationship. Someone shits on you, spits on you, and tells you to fuk off repeatedly and then you hug them (and vote for their Obama/Biden). Pathetic.

“Rather than complaining why people are voting for Obama a better tactic would be to understand how the Left can create a UNITED FRONT.”

According to YOU. Other people, including myself, feel differently.

People are free to complain about whatever they choose to (whether you like it or not). I complain about the gullible sheep (and that’s how the people behave….like sheep) who are voting for Walk on Water Obama because I see them as naive, gullible suckers. They refuse to learn from one voting cycle to the other. (See the definition of insanity). They’ve been programmed with that D party line shit. They want so hard to believe in this empty suit man with his hope and change bull shit and they refuse to see him for what he really is just because he has a damn D behind his name when he’s really a corporatist, pro-war Repug. You don’t want people complaining about that in the Obama voters? Too damn bad. If your candidate is Obama and if he were worth a damn and if you were secure in your support of him, you wouldn’t care what anyone said about him. Period. And if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the damn kitchen.

And as for this “Left” nonsense, I see we’re just going around in circle with that.

You don’ t seem to have a clue that the traditional Democratic Party is DEAD so there is no one there to “challenge.” Even Robert Reich said that back in 2001 (that the Democratic Party is dead).

They Aren’t ‘Just Resting’
The Democratic Party is Dead
by Robert B. Reich

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0311-01.htm

If anyone is going to challenge anyone, one would challenge the Republican Party (which the former traditional Democratic Party is part of and has been since 2000). I don’t know how much more evidence one needs to see to understand that. Assuming one wants to.

Max you can vote however you wish. I never advocated how anyone should vote UNLIKE YOU! You wish to position yourself PIOUSLY as not voting lesser evil so you can claim an “I told you so” stance. That won’t bring the masses to your side which it what you NEED to have if there is going to be any change to the two party duopoly.

The reason why I point out McKinney’s voting record is the fact that prior to McKinney, Elaine Brown (an African American women and former Black Panther) ran for the Green Party nomination. However the Green Party COMPROMISED and chose McKinney as its standard bearer.

What is HYPOCRISY is that the void that the Left help to create by diffusing the anti-war movement and its inability to coalesce in 2004 created a void that is now being filled by Obama. Apparently the masses that have been attracted into the Obama camp are making the COMPROMISE that you rail against.

Masses compromise: bad
Left compromise: good.

Rather than complaining why people are voting for Obama a better tactic would be to understand how the Left can create a UNITED FRONT.

Nader and McKinney are not running together. That’s been true since the beginning. Beating that horse won’t change matters. That said.

Once again this is not about “Wishful thinking” this is about a UNIFIED FRONT to present a REAL CHALLENGE to the Democrats. The “more choices/more voices” approach splits and diffuses the Left rather than unite their rank. This is exactly what happened in 2003 when the Left diffused and weakened the anti-war movement.

However what Max would rather do is obscure the fact of the diffusion on the Left rather than DEAL with that REALITY and why the masses rallied behind the Obama campaign rather than Nader or McKinney.

The “left” are not the challenge because you have a vivid imagination that keeps using this meaningless word to make a “point” about it.

So the rebuttal is to deny there is a “Left” that no such entity exist. That is why Max is here on debating his positions DV rather than on the Cato Institute site because there is no “Left”. In fact there is a Left and has been for centuries. The term originates from France. So to say that the term is “meaningless” is to set up a straw-man argument and a refusal to do self-assessment at how the Left can present a unified front to the masses so that what he hopes to achieve CAN be achieved.

It speaks to two issues: 1) the pent up energies for alternative business as usual government to form a sustained movement 2) the near impossibility of fighting a system on its terms.

Going head to head with the monopolistic hierarchical empire is just suicidal. Those terms are no-win for real change. You either join it or re-direct those energies to a movement that starts local and creates connections between localities within regions, across the nation and ultimately across the planet.

The Earth Charter, which is part of this thinking, has started globally, but it is essential to begin local movements, local living economies and living relationships/partnerships and coalitions which create a different “world” order, one distinct from the empire system of Dems/Repubs and their supporting imperialistic institutions.

It is not what happens during this election cycle, but what happens afterwards. Such a movement will require creativity/imagination. The media, so far, owns with political and economic system the dominant narrative. That can only be changed through local narrative re-framing. Start a film/discussion series around the profound problems with empire and connect those discussions with real economic and social justice that touches people’s daily lives. Local currency, self-reliant bio-regions, farm to city inititiatives to secure whole food and create a deep local economy, a common good bank based on democratic goverance, dedicated to the local community and economy. The list goes on.

Change will not come from the top/Washington. Fighting it is an endless battle that is easily fragmented and marginalized by the centers of monopolistic power.

Begin where you are. (Sure vote Nader, but there’s so much more).

The “left” are not the challenge because you have a vivid imagination that keeps using this meaningless word to make a “point” about it.

Nader and McKinney are not running together. That’s been true since the beginning. Beating that horse won’t change matters. That said.

You can vote for whoever you wish, Nader is the one who’s in 45 States and has been hitting 5-8% not McKinney. I haven’t gotten a sense (speculation) of solid Green support for her. I would wager that most “registered” Greens will vote for Nader because 1) he embodies the platform/values 2) is best known 3) has a much more likely chance of being on the ballot.

I don’t see much split here. I think McKinney adds to the argument but with the exception of Clemente has not differentiated herself from Nader/Gonzalez.

In a word, people who follow McKinney and Nader are not split.

Re-alignments will happen “if” the totality of the “re-alignment votes” is significant to sustain it. This is not simply a progressive (Nader / McKinney) but a Barr and the Consititutional candidate.

In other words, it is the cumulative votes for Nader + McKinney + Barr + the CC. If you want you can add Nader + McKinney = Independent/Green Progressive votes.

So, you have a choice you can vote for Obama, or you can vote for sustaining a re-alignment.

What perceived “Left” are you talking about?

The so-called Democratic Party is DEAD so I don’t know why the “Left” (if such an entity existed) would waste their time challenging something that’s dead—only a shell of a party remains today—and which unofficially became part of the Republican Party back in 2000.

It’s not about Nader winning, it’s about giving a vote of no confidence to the system and to propel the re-alignment that Nader and others have staked out post election day.

With both parties behind the bailout one can assume that this would benefit Nader in the polls and that there may be enough anger to vote Nader as a protest. On the other hand Obama has risen in the polls against McCain. So I really don’t see that this has been a net benefit for Nader.

I would agree that voting for Nader is not about Nader winning but it is also NOT about building a real alternative either. That opportunity was lost four years ago. It would have been better had Nader and McKinney coalesced their campaigns. This “More Choices and More Voices” IMO splits the very weak “Left”.

Actually I think that the recent Democracy Now with Rosa Clemente and Matt Gonzalez drew a sharp contrast between Nader and McKinney which clearly shows the riff on the Left especially between people color and the mostly white Left that Nader caters to.

At this point IMO the Left is not ready to challenge the Democrats.

Nader’s in 45 States - I can vote and will for him.

Time to stop the tactical calculations, and vote your conscience.

It’s not about Nader winning, it’s about giving a vote of no confidence to the system and to propel the re-alignment that Nader and others have staked out post election day.

I’m glad everyone agrees on trashing the one party system; it is the only way forward as even Lee and Kucinich can’t do truly their best if they have to be subservient to the robber baron party.

And yes, rosemarie, I think we should get our money back from wall street now; but let us act instead as Sallie Mae does with it’s student loans; we will immediately put the loan in repayment, and list it on their credit reports as a default; we will sell the loan five times, only to buy it back, tripling the amount due in the process; we will call them and their relatives ten times a day, garnish the wages of their Ceo’s, seize their tax returns, and even if they pay in full, we will conveniently lose those records and continue to demand the outstanding balance.

Completely agree. Unfortunately, most people here in the States were programmed from an early age with the Dem and Repug party-line thinking. It’s cemented in them, just like their belief in a supreme being. It’s nearly impossible to deprogramme that thinking without professional help. Therefore, we’re stuck with it and its consequences until most voters change their thinking and can think beyond this D/R “toe the party-line” box thing.

I can’t begin to count the number of times I’ve heard people say, “I’ll always vote Democratic (or Repug). I always do and always will. My family is a good Dem (or Repug) family. I will vote Dem (or Repug) until the day I die.” It’s how scum like war-profiteer Dianne Feinstein, for example, keep getting “elected.” This Bush-enabling Repug still has a D behind her name and name recognition and many (most?) people mindlessly vote for her solely because they see “Feinstein - D” on their ballot. That’s sufficient for most people. Forget about her despicable record! Or those who are willfully ignorant about her repugnant record.

But anyway, I’m waiting for the Department of Elections to send me my ballot so I can vote for Nader/Gonzalez and send the ballot back to them.

Now, whether my vote (or anyone else’s) on this corrupt, fraud of a voting system that we have here in the States will be counted fair and accurately is an entirely different matter since these easily-hackable e-voting machines are all over the nation now.

Barbara Lee voted FOR the ***$875 BILLION*** bailout:

Oakland — In a colossal political blunder, Congresswoman Barbara Lee double-crossed her constituency and voted for H.R. 3997, the $700 billion bailout scheme to enrich the billionaires on Wall Street.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/10/03/18542771.php

OOOOOOppps…news is now reporting that the $700 + billion bail-out did not work. Can the taxpayers get a refund ? Last time I bought a pair of socks, they gave me 30 days to return the merchandise for a full refund.

Fundamental change. Proportion rep. is certainly one way to achieve that.