Mickey Z
Cool Observer
Friday, February 02, 2007
Nader still in the crosshairs
The SM comments don’t seem quite as bad as the Daily KOS ones. DK has always really confused me. Not just that I don’t like reading it, but I don’t even really understand what it’s about. For one thing, are they comments accusing you of being a troll? What?
But about Nader, I voted for him twice and would again, but somehow, I don’t know, I kind wish there was someone else. There’s just this vague disillusionment that I can’t put my finger on right now.
Posted by James on from Hell's Kitchen 02/02 at 06:17 AMWow. Most of those people seem to have their minds made up. It seems like everytime you bring up Nader in the blogosphere, previously seemingly well-informed (self-imagined) liberals and progressives suddenly go Free Republic on your ass.
I voted for Nader in 2000, and I still get the same two responses: from my ‘liberal’ friends, “thanks for putting Bush in the White House.” To which I always respond, “no, Gore won the election. It was stolen from him.” I guess it is easier for them to heap a mountain of lies and hatred on a scapegoat than to admit that the ‘greatest system of government on the planet’ is nothing more than a very expensive fraud. Of course, there is the other response; it uses the same words-- in the same order-- only its meaning is different as it comes with a smirk: “Thanks for putting Bush in the White House.” My right wing acquaintances, despite all the failure and bloodshed, are still apparently ‘happy’ with the results of the judicial coup of 2000.
Damn, Mickey, this ain’t looking good.
Posted by Church Secretary on from Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. 02/02 at 06:17 AMRalph didn’t really promise not to run in swing states and then break that, did he? Not that I’m saying he’d necessarily be wrong to have ran wherever he wanted to, but going back on his word couldn’t have been good if that were true… what a mess.
Posted by James on from Hell's Kitchen 02/02 at 07:02 AMGood morning James, Church Secretary, and Mickey.
Great article there, Mickey. The comments are similar to the ones I hear every time that I mention Nader. Every election proves that the facts don’t matter. Voters cast ballots based on illusions. More Iraqi civilians died under Clinton than under both Bushes but I have yet to find one Democrat who will acknowledge that fact. Maybe there is a difference between the democrats and republicans. The democrats seem to be better at covering up their dead bodies.
Posted by RMJ on from Churchill 4 Prez Hdqts 02/02 at 08:55 AMthis has been making me think for days… and i think it is relevant for the issue today....
“in the end, we will remember not the actions of our enemies but the silence of our friends”
MLK
i think this refers to the sort of people who think nader put bush in power instead of gore as if it would make a difference
Posted by michael on from exile 02/02 at 09:44 AMGeez Mickey it does sounds like the DK comments are calling you a troll. How weird is that? What’s next? Are they going to call you a paid disinfo agent? All those cats are stuck playing the left/right game. The Clinton admin was business as usual wearing velvet gloves.
I voted for Nader and I would again if it was a choice between Him, Gore or Bush. It’s public record that Gore won the popular election once all the votes were counted. Unfortunately this was some months after the courts awarded Bush the election. Big surprise it wasn’t widely covered in the media.
Both Gore and Kerry conceded there elections before all the votes were counted. Anyone remember Kerry collecting millions of donations to investigate any voter fraud? Funny how he conceded before all the votes were counted on top of which when voter fraud became suspect he walked with the cash instead of investigating.
Personally I’m under the opinion that Bush had to win the 2000 election to get Cheney in the white house. 911 could not of happened with a Gore cabinet. Cheney was the man with the plan and calling the shots on that morning. Gore in the White House, no 911, no long national terror nightmare and we would be all driving electric cars and watching the endangered wildlife population jump back. Well I’m not that naive but since I’m waxing hypothetically. haha
Dang that trailer just stinks of hit piece to me. “Don’t you even think of running again Ralphy boy.”
Ugh back to management training today. At least they have good coffee.
Take care, lots of love to every Expendable and not.
LunaPosted by Luna_C on from the Delta 02/02 at 10:08 AMCan anyone out there in the Expendable Universe help explain the differences between what is legal and what is ethical? Please feel free to use 4 letter words when referencing politicians, corporate managers, owners of Ma and Pa icecream shops. Also, why haven’t we ever had a female pope?
Posted by Joe of Maine on from 02/02 at 10:18 AMlegal means someone told you could do it
ethical means YOU felt yourself you shouldn’t have done it
Copyright ME
Posted by michael on from exile 02/02 at 10:21 AM“copyright me” is legal but not ethical
Posted by michael on from exile 02/02 at 10:21 AMactually its neither but i like to keep people guessing about when i am joking or not
is that ethical?
Posted by michael on from exile 02/02 at 10:23 AMNothing pisses me off more than those damn losers at sites like DailyKos. Nothing pisses me off more than supposed liberals and their two faces. I much prefer a straight forward fascist than these people who pretend to be “for the people” and then back fucking war criminals.
These people are getting all geared up for Hillary...a war monger.
Once again, I hate elitists who say they know what’s best for the people all the while twisting the blade in the people’s back.
Posted by JOS on from Chicago 02/02 at 10:28 AMand wouldn’t you know it:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/02/america/NA-GEN-US-Clinton-Iran.php
Posted by JOS on from Chicago 02/02 at 10:48 AMHello Expendables. The bad weather they predicted did not arrive. On the other hand, the political bad weather is a daily reality.
Thanks for the great comments above. For the sake of clarity, I’ll state that I’m not one to elevate anyone to hero status and that’s not my intent with Nader. However, his situation does serve as an excellent illustration of the vacancy of the “left” (and why I’d rather not be called “leftist").
As Church Secretary alludes to...if conservatives really gave a shit about protecting (sic) our (sic) freedoms (sic), they’d have been up in arms about a stolen election no matter who won. And if liberals cared about justice, casting a vote in 2000 would have been a no-brainer as only one candidate represented anything approaching justice.
As the song goes: “Clowns to the left of me, jokers on the right, and here I am stuck in the middle with you.”
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 02/02 at 11:19 AMjoe had a question earlier…
i have one now.
do you know why the terms “left” wing and “right” wing are used?
there are a few different theories on the net but there is a real reason.
why are some political positions arbitrarily described as left and some arbitrarily described as right?
it is a good question, and there is an answer too
Posted by michael on from e 02/02 at 11:54 AMHi Luna…
Joe #7...I remember that a long time ago people talked about the “fact” that there had been a Popess Joan.
JOS #12...Yep, that’s really sad. I like her new hair-do, too bad that she’s such a fascist.
michael..."ethical" and “legal”. I think that they are antonyms in the usa.
Posted by RMJ on from Churchill 4 Prez Hdqts 02/02 at 12:34 PMSifting through the anti-Nader chaff, I failed to find one mention of the most obvious reason Gore lost the election: he didn’t carry his home state. I’ve heard Jim Hightower hold forth on this a few times and not only did Gore lose Tennessee, he didn’t even carry his home district - where he lives, and his family has for generations.
There are lots of other points of contention, on which liberal apologists can offer heat but no light, but if Gore had won Tennessee (and no president has taken office without his home state), all this liberal backbiting would have to be on another issue.
That sounds like an interesting contest: in 2000 Gore wins TN, and the election. On what issues would liberal brain damage then be most prominent? Clintonite ones (sanctions in Iraq, NAFTA/GATT) or new creations of their very own focus groups? Of course we know that the complaints against Nader would be the same…
Posted by Zen Prole on from Urth 02/02 at 12:44 PMI dunno, Zen, rumor has it Nader personally flew those planes into the Towers and, even worse, conjured up the concept for American Idol. He’s the anti-christ for sure.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 02/02 at 12:50 PMBtw, Michael...do you plan to share those answers?
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 02/02 at 12:51 PMHi everybody. MZ good for you for diving headfirst into the necessary provocation. Sorry I can’t be bothered to comment over there.
JOS #11 absolutely. The mass of people in the liberal blogosphere (note: 2 words I never use, but we’re talking Daily Kos here) have a grasp of politics and history so superficial and lacking in subtlety that they’d take Hitler as a Democrat over St. Francis running on the Green Party ticket every time.
I don’t think anyone has as interesting a take on the Nader business as Michael Albert, both in 2000 (he proposed a ‘shadow’ gov’t after the Bush takeover) and 2004 (don’t run Ralph). There’s articles out there, can’t find ‘em now.
By the way just finished Vonnegut’s latest. Brilliant!
Posted by Keir on from the hague 02/02 at 01:03 PMmichael #14: it’s easy, these squirmy little things we have called opinions can easily have geographical coordinates tacked onto them. See if I were to say I favour the North Atlantic not having a sticky blanket of oil to keep it warm that would put me to the left of someone who says they favour gun control, just like Hitler and Stalin and Mao did. Hitler was to the left of Mao who, as the crow flies, was a little north of Stalin. you see? agh I’m going to do a websearch for some telephoto’ed Scarlett Johannsen. Later, y’all.
Posted by owen on from sant coogat, schmarcelona 02/02 at 01:06 PMYeah...Kos...Eschaton...etc.
Their followers all talk in unison, tell a lot of snide jokes, and act like the Democrats are going to save the world from the big bad W. There are a whole lot of them too...have you ever seen the comments boards over there? Fucking scary.
Posted by JOS on from Chicago 02/02 at 01:17 PMHello Keir and Owen…
Here’s a piece that relates nicely to today’s post and yesterday’s post:
http://www.counterpunch.org/cohen02022007.htmlPosted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 02/02 at 01:59 PMYou enjoy being a skunk at the picnic on that piece of shit Kos don’t you Mickey?
All the illusory “left and “right” jibber-niggles in American politics make me wonder how you determine where the centre is.
Both sides are so distended outward from their own fantasy realms that there is no centre.America needs strong 4th and 3rd parties so badly it aches. Unfortunately, in our modern version of “democracy” those too eventually get infiltrated and steered as they are here in Adanac.
Hold all the parties you want the entire block (system) is diseased.
(I personally have a hate on for the disciples of Strauss so I tend to grind my teeth more in the presence of Neocons.)To admit that the 2000 election was fixed would be the admission of the inconvenient truth that America is not (nor probably never was) a functioning “democracy” by and for the people.
It’s Coke or Pepsi - you decide!
It is a choice between the corporation that will steal your drinking water or the one that will turn it into an open sewer either way you die a slow and painful death.
I’m sure “Vice President Lieberman” would have been just as capable as The Iron Dick of following through on the launch of the “9-11” program. They both answer loudly to the same masters.
It is not as though it was thought up over night by members of one political party.
These sort of herd “reality” shifting programs take years to put together.I was rash to query as to why you bother posting there yesterday.
You like to roll in the ensuing shit storm like a happy dog in fresh garbage, cheeky monkey!Posted by Youngfox on from 02/02 at 03:09 PMI often get that Sisyphean feeling, Mickey. Thanks for all you do and write on this blog and elsewhere - keep raising hell!
Hello, James, Church Secretary, Rosemarie, Michael, Luna_C, Joe of Maine, JOS, Keir, Owen, Zen Prole and youngfox. Faced with all your brilliant comments, Helga falls silent but wants to wish all of you and you, Mickey and Michele, a very good weekend. It will be 100F tomorrow and the day after (Sunday and Monday in Australia).
Oh, and you can listen to John Nichols of ‘The Nation’ talking about Molly Ivins here:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3036Posted by Helga Fremlin on from Daylesford, Australia 02/02 at 03:54 PMEvening all.
Scots Michael;
Theres the old story about left and right being formed in France’s revolutionary parliament, but like so many political terms they’re barely meaningful over time, especially not in an arena where Obama and Clinton are ‘Left’.
Personally I’d define Left as: valuing living things over non-living things and intending a society where people can live freely as equals. A vague definition, but those are the best kind when speculating, I think.
Certain historically “socialist” countries fall into the ‘Right’ category with such a definition. No doubt members of various Communist Parties would call that “juvenile ultra-leftism”. #### ‘em, I say.
The “lets blame anyone but us” attitude is probably explicable in kindergarten psychology. I don’t have a degree in psychology, so I’d guess its just bullshit.Posted by Mew on from somewhat north of London, huzzah! 02/02 at 06:46 PMThere’s a sad listlessness ‘bout the Dems or liberals or what-have-you that irks me so. Of course, you don’t see condemnation, as in Nader’s case, of Perot on the Republican side for “costing” Bush Sr. re-election.
“Of the three candidates in the 2000 election, Ralph Nader was second only to Al Gore for costing Al Gore the presidency.” ~The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
I’ll pencil in Nader next ‘round if he doesn’t run.
Posted by ultrafknbd on from Cali 02/03 at 01:34 AMDear Professor Bacevich, I enjoyed reading your January 29 article in TAC. Like everything you write, it displays much level-headedness and appreciation of the relevant historical and political facts, all of which are lacking in the latest harebrained neocon-presidential scheme to “surge” another batch of U.S. troops into harm’s way in Baghdad for no good reason.
I differ with your views, however, in two regards.
First, you write as though the past sixty years of U.S. policy in the Middle East amount to little more than a series of stupid and unsuccessful episodes. Of course, if one supposes that these policies were intended to realize their ostensible purposes, you are correct. I do not believe, however, that those ostensible purposes were much more than pretexts.
As a general rule for understanding public policies, I insist that there are no persistent “failed” policies. Policies that do not achieve their desired outcomes for the actual powers-that-be are quickly changed. If you want to know why the U.S. policies have been what they have been for the past sixty years, you need only comply with that invaluable rule of inquiry in politics: follow the money.
When you do so, I believe you will find U.S. policies in the Middle East to have been wildly successful, so successful that the gains they have produced for the movers and shakers in the petrochemical, financial, and weapons industries (which is approximately to say, for those who have the greatest influence in determining U.S. foreign policies) must surely be counted in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
So U.S. soldiers get killed, so Palestinians get insulted, robbed, and confined to a set of squalid concentration areas, so the “peace process” never gets far from square one, etc., etc. – none of this makes the policies failures; these things are all surface froth, costs not born by the policy makers themselves but by the cannon-fodder masses, the bovine taxpayers at large, and foreigners who count for nothing.
Second, near the end of your article, you speak of the necessity of “ending our dependence on Persian Gulf oil.” I have mentioned this matter to you before, but your statement leads me to conclude that you have not taken my previous objection to heart.
To be as brief as possible, the U.S. is not dependent on Persian Gulf oil in any significant economic way. Yes, the Persian Gulf pours substantial amounts of oil into the world supply pool, and U.S. demanders draw heavily from that pool. But the Persian Gulf sheikdoms have every interest in selling their oil, whether Exxon Mobil, Shell, Texaco, or somebody else does the grunt work to bring it to the surface and transport it to the harbors. The U.S. government need do nothing special to see that this oil continues to flow into the world’s supply pool, any more than it needs a policy of coercing the Russians to sell their oil on the world market.
Moreover, the U.S. cannot substantially reduce its use of oil drawn from the world oil supply pool in the short or medium terms: modern technology relies heavily on petroleum and its derivatives, and substantial changes in relative prices and oil-related public policies of various sorts would be required to alter this great reality, however possible it may be to alter it in the long run by means of technological change spurred by relative price changes.
But the U.S. military presence in the Gulf serves not to ensure that the oil keeps flowing; it merely ensures that U.S. corporations (oil and weapons companies in particular), banks, insurance companies, and so forth will be the specific parties raking in the profits from dealing in the Gulf oil. If they didn’t do these jobs, the jobs would still get done, but they would get done by the efforts of other firms (European, Chinese, Japanese, and so forth), which is precisely the point: U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East serves the purposes of specific U.S. economic entities, which in turn more or less control the policies by the way they exercise their financial muscle in U.S. politics.
The neocon madness of the past few years is an aberration. It has not turned out to serve the purposes of the true movers and shakers (represented roughly by Baker and Co.), and so ultimately it will have to give way. The dimwitted president currently serving, who has run off the reservation by virtue of his personal ineptitude and immaturity, may extend the present madness until he leaves office, but eventually the actual powers that be in this country will reassert their control. They may have to do so with a Democratic administration, but they will still do so. Best wishes, Bob Higgs
Posted by cheese on from 02/07 at 02:11 AM
Next entry: What I heard on the W Train
Previous entry: Hell, high water & corporate profit
Copyright © 2005-2007 Mickey Z.
