Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

First and foremost, a GC needs to be seen as a leader, not a flag-bearer. Cynthia McKinney can't be a GC, any more than you can, and for much the same reason. The problems of the real world come in shades of gray. Leaders know that and deal it. Flag-beares never have to ... and don't.

Anyone willing to run on the Green Party platform has got a lot to recommend him/her, whatever else she has said or done that isn't perfect.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) is calling for an investigation into whether President Bush and other government officials had advance notice of terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 but did nothing to prevent them. She added that "persons close to this administration are poised to make huge profits off America's new war."

In a recent interview with a Berkeley, Calif., radio station, McKinney said: "We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11th. . . . What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? . . . What do they have to hide?"
...
McKinney declined to be interviewed yesterday, but she issued a statement saying: "I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case."
....
In the radio conversation, McKinney delivered a stinging attack on the administration. In 2000, she charged, Bush forces "stole from America our most precious right of all, the right to free and fair elections." With the September attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania, McKinney said, "an administration of questionable legitimacy has been given unprecedented power."...
"What is undeniable is that corporations close to the administration have directly benefited from the increased defense spending arising from the aftermath of September 11th," McKinney charged. "America's credibility, both with the world and with her own people, rests upon securing credible answers to these questions."

Quite appropriate comments, likely completely factual, and very GC worthy!!

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Why, when we have all this poll information showing that Americans are center-left, and definitely not on program with the Republican agenda, do the media continue to depict the country as center-right?

Indeed, it is not today; and if it ever was, it is only since Reagan. The nation shifts back and forth from era to era, generation to generation, but to say our country is "center-right" is to say America is characterized throughout its history by views held during the Reagan era. That is not an accurate characterization. But the media repeats it in robotic style.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Actually, if you're talking about understanding what needs to be done, FDR is a terrible (but nonetheless encouraging) example. What needed to be done was what finally was done: encourage labor unions, provide a basic social safety net, and spend massive amounts of money to jump-start the economy and pull us out of the Depression. He did the first two reluctantly, near or at the end of his first term (second pres. term of the Crisis), under pressure from the left inside and outside Congress. He did the last one in his third term (fourth pres. term of the Crisis) under pressure from Japanese fighter-bombers. FDR did a whole lot of things that either amounted to band-aids on arterial bleeding (e.g. the CCC, WPA, and other relief programs to ease the plight of the unemployed), or were totally wrong-headed (e.g. the AAA and NRA). These were the things he did under his own steam: basic compassion moves that were heart-appropriate but betrayed zero understanding of economics, and just plain stupid stuff. So Roosevelt is actually clear proof that, if the pressure is right and the ideas are floating around, we don't absolutely need a leader who knows what the hell he's doing, although of course that's nice to have.



Wrong, wrong, wrong! See, this is what I mean about the mainstream media. They are all -- all of the network news, all of the cable news, all of the big pundits -- following a script laid down by their corporate owners. There are plenty of ideas from the left floating around and resulting in movements; you just don't see those ideas because you, like most Xers and even a higher percentage of Boomers, have gotten into the habit of actually believing what the traditional media tell you and, even more important (because they rarely out-and-out lie) assuming they're giving you good coverage. They're not.

Why, when we have all this poll information showing that Americans are center-left, and definitely not on program with the Republican agenda, do the media continue to depict the country as center-right? Why, when we have movements on to recall Republican legislators in Wisconsin, and a heavily-attended Netroots Nation this year, and huge amounts of writing available on line from a left-wing perspective, do the media cover the Tea Party but none of the leftist insurgency, creating the illusion -- and that's exactly what it is -- that the Tea Party is the "more successful" movement? It's "more successful," so far, in getting media coverage, and it had a temporary success in last year's election, too. But it certainly isn't the larger, nor can it in the long run be successful, as the complete self-destructive paralysis in the current GOP under their influence demonstrates. (Even the punditocracy is starting to recognize this, viz. David Broder's recent column.)

Mike, what you say here about a deficit of ideas on the left is simply not fact.

It is an incontestable fact that the majority of Americans are on the Left on an issue-by-issue basis, proven by countless polls. The notion that "we can't be that progressive because it will scare away the (mythical) moderate independants" is simply an excuse and a lie.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

This is pure speculation, but I'm going to offer a hypothesis as to what the Tea Party really represents. Note that if this hypothesis is true, most of the participants in the Tea Party movement don't realize what's going on.

For the last thirty years or so, we have been faced with a set of political parameters that forces the electorate to choose between two parties that pursue the same corporate agenda in different ways. There are several tools for making this happen that operate within the political class itself. One is the deliberate accumulation of high levels of public debt during times when Republicans control the government, forcing Democratic administrations and Congresses to clean up the mess rather than pursuing progressive agendas. Another is the control of campaign financing, which forces almost all Democrats (and Republicans of course) holding statewide offices or the White House to toe the corporate line in order to receive the funding they require in order to campaign for reelection.

Note that this agenda is purely economic; it is not "conservative" across the board. The wealthy individuals and corporations who are doing this don't care, as a class, about social issues at all. (Specific individuals may be exceptions, of course.) Thus, when politicians of either party take certain positions on issues such as abortion or gay rights or other social matters, they are pursuing votes from their constituents or even acting according to their own genuine convictions. But when they take the positions they do on economic matters -- taxes, workers' rights, trade -- they are acting under orders. They are not doing what they genuinely believe to be in the nation's interests; they are doing what they are paid to do. These mechanisms have bracketed a range of possible government actions where the left-most extreme is represented by politicians such as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. At the same time, the corporate-controlled media have acted to create the illusion that this range of possible government action also represents the range of public opinion, even though polls make it clear that's not the case.

An inevitable consequence of this is that over time, the positions of the parties become out of step with what most of the people want and expect. Eventually, a conflict between the owner class and the remainder of the people would develop and become increasingly overt. Since the democratic features of our government have only been corrupted and not actually repealed, this has the potential of pushing a rebellion into the circles of government itself and overturning corporate control. I believe the Tea Party is an attempt to subvert and divide that potential. However, I also believe that it has gotten out of hand and begun to backfire on the corporate controllers, since those participating in it are not consciously part of the deception and genuinely believe what they are saying for the most part.

The natural line of movement for the insurgency is on the left and that is where the bulk of the insurgents may be found. This insurgency drove the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006 and of the White House in 2008. But there is a certain minority of the population who, while equally disenchanted with corporate control of the government and holding an equally low opinion of big business, are otherwise more inclined to the right. They envision getting rid of corporate dominance by going back rather than forward, and at the same time take a right-wing stance on social issues. They envision a form of governance that existed prior to the last Crisis or even prior to the Civil War. Of course that's non-workable and a whole lot of it unacceptable to the corporate masters, but to actually enact their agenda isn't the idea; the idea is simply to divide the insurgency and confuse people. If the attention of the insurgents, right and left, can be focused on each other rather than on the common enemy, then the owner class can head off any effective opposition to their control, at least for a while.

In 2010, this right-wing populist insurgency, together with the disenchantment of the left for Obama (who had proven himself to be every bit as non-progressive as Clinton), resulted in an electoral victory for the Republicans. But it seems to me that the effort is backfiring at this point. Many of the new members of Congress feel under pressure from the Tea Party to take positions that the corporate controllers would really prefer they didn't, a good example being the intransigence on the debt ceiling. This has the result of discrediting the Republican Party with the electorate and opening the door for a renewed push from the main-line, left-leaning branch of the insurgency.

What I expect to see next year, if I'm right about that, is the issue of corporate dominance and of disparity of wealth come to the surface as the driving issue of the election: exactly the opposite of what is intended. All of the last three elections have been driven by the insurgency in one way or another. I believe it to be the dominant theme of the first part of the Turning: the people versus the corporations. The Tea Party is an odd part of that, but a part of it nonetheless.

Great post.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

This is pure speculation, but I'm going to offer a hypothesis as to what the Tea Party really represents. Note that if this hypothesis is true, most of the participants in the Tea Party movement don't realize what's going on.

About all that they know is "Let's go to (chain) Restaurant and think of how we can show up all those godless, librul, baby-killing, eggheads who listen to NPR instead of Rush Limbaugh. What sort of signs do we want? Obama = Osama? Give him a Hitler hairdo and mustache? Change the "O" to a hammer-and-sickle? Say that he was born in Kenya? Good. No, we can't get away with the N-word, anymore". The local Tea Party types don't know that they are being manipulated. They are low-information people.

For the last thirty years or so, we have been faced with a set of political parameters that forces the electorate to choose between two parties that pursue the same corporate agenda in different ways. There are several tools for making this happen that operate within the political class itself. One is the deliberate accumulation of high levels of public debt during times when Republicans control the government, forcing Democratic administrations and Congresses to clean up the mess rather than pursuing progressive agendas. Another is the control of campaign financing, which forces almost all Democrats (and Republicans of course) holding statewide offices or the White House to toe the corporate line in order to receive the funding they require in order to campaign for reelection.

The alternative to the 'civilized' choices is populism, something off the table. The South used to have a populist heritage as the closest thing to liberalism that the South could muster, at least among white people. (Southern blacks can be Northern-style liberals). But the corporate and agrarian interests can effectively make liberalism in the South almost strictly a "black" phenomenon and can attempt to tie traditional culture and religion to reactionary politics. But that has begun to fail in some places -- like Virginia and North Carolina. Georgia is probably next.

We do not have a full regeneracy until the regional polarization of American politics comes to an end.

Note that this agenda is purely economic; it is not "conservative" across the board. The wealthy individuals and corporations who are doing this don't care, as a class, about social issues at all. (Specific individuals may be exceptions, of course.) Thus, when politicians of either party take certain positions on issues such as abortion or gay rights or other social matters, they are pursuing votes from their constituents or even acting according to their own genuine convictions. But when they take the positions they do on economic matters -- taxes, workers' rights, trade -- they are acting under orders. They are not doing what they genuinely believe to be in the nation's interests; they are doing what they are paid to do. These mechanisms have bracketed a range of possible government actions where the left-most extreme is represented by politicians such as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. At the same time, the corporate-controlled media have acted to create the illusion that this range of possible government action also represents the range of public opinion, even though polls make it clear that's not the case.

No matter how harsh things get for women, LGBT people, religious minorities, and environmentalists, such people, if elites, can always take vacations in Canada if not move there. But people not so elite will have to toe the line. But what happens if Americans turn on Corporate America? What happens if FoX Propaganda Channel becomes a running joke? Could President Obama be the one who edges America a little more to the Left while someone -- maybe Andrew Cuomo? -- gets miracles in New York State?

An inevitable consequence of this is that over time, the positions of the parties become out of step with what most of the people want and expect. Eventually, a conflict between the owner class and the remainder of the people would develop and become increasingly overt. Since the democratic features of our government have only been corrupted and not actually repealed, this has the potential of pushing a rebellion into the circles of government itself and overturning corporate control. I believe the Tea Party is an attempt to subvert and divide that potential. However, I also believe that it has gotten out of hand and begun to backfire on the corporate controllers, since those participating in it are not consciously part of the deception and genuinely believe what they are saying for the most part.

The Tea Party so far is just a front for the GOP. Last year as I walked into the local Den of Iniquity (no, not Porno Palace, but county GOP headquarters) I saw Tea party literature. It operates much like some new and shrill outfits that popped up in eastern Europe soon after the Soviets drove out the Nazis -- stooge outfits that tried to pull in disaffected people from occupational groups (like farmers and small-business owners) and religious people who would ordinarily be hostile to Communism to vote for people who would eventually do the Commies' bidding once elected. Once the Commies took over, the people who aided such front groups soon came to know that they had been had -- but by then it was too late.

This time the GOP wants people to vote on single issues like guns, abortion, school prayer, and creationism. So far as I can tell, when the totalitarianized GOP takes over the corporations will decide who gets to have a gun (death squads?), will be able to tell an employee to get an abortion because pregnancy isn't good for productivity or the corporate image, school prayer will be amended to include effusive praise for bosses and shareholders, and creationism will be rejected when it proves incompatible with genetically-engineered foodstuffs. The real objective of the economic Hard Right is a reversion to 70-hour workweeks and 490year lifespans for industrial workers who have to quit elementary school to support their broken-down parents in their mid-30s.

But -- right-wing populism often becomes left-wing populism. The Tea Party Movement has the potential to become a Frankenstein monster.

The natural line of movement for the insurgency is on the left and that is where the bulk of the insurgents may be found. This insurgency drove the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006 and of the White House in 2008. But there is a certain minority of the population who, while equally disenchanted with corporate control of the government and holding an equally low opinion of big business, are otherwise more inclined to the right. They envision getting rid of corporate dominance by going back rather than forward, and at the same time take a right-wing stance on social issues. They envision a form of governance that existed prior to the last Crisis or even prior to the Civil War. Of course that's non-workable and a whole lot of it unacceptable to the corporate masters, but to actually enact their agenda isn't the idea; the idea is simply to divide the insurgency and confuse people. If the attention of the insurgents, right and left, can be focused on each other rather than on the common enemy, then the owner class can head off any effective opposition to their control, at least for a while.

The good news is that most of the American Left is non-violent and has no ties to totalitarian ideologies.

In 2010, this right-wing populist insurgency, together with the disenchantment of the left for Obama (who had proven himself to be every bit as non-progressive as Clinton), resulted in an electoral victory for the Republicans. But it seems to me that the effort is backfiring at this point. Many of the new members of Congress feel under pressure from the Tea Party to take positions that the corporate controllers would really prefer they didn't, a good example being the intransigence on the debt ceiling. This has the result of discrediting the Republican Party with the electorate and opening the door for a renewed push from the main-line, left-leaning branch of the insurgency.

More significant are the portents of right-wing "reforms" -- like privatizing Medicare. It could have been Social Security, or it could have been selling off the highway system cheaply to profiteers. The economic Right has never been for competition except for a race to the bottom for the common man, a race to exhausting toil on starvation rations. Whether it is the smashing of unions, manipulation of money to destroy savings, the establishment of captive markets, or the imposition of outright serfdom, the Hard Right invariably finds some way to reduce working people to robots or animals.

What I expect to see next year, if I'm right about that, is the issue of corporate dominance and of disparity of wealth come to the surface as the driving issue of the election: exactly the opposite of what is intended. All of the last three elections have been driven by the insurgency in one way or another. I believe it to be the dominant theme of the first part of the Turning: the people versus the corporations. The Tea Party is an odd part of that, but a part of it nonetheless.

I think that you are right.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

About all that they know is "Let's go to (chain) Restaurant and think of how we can show up all those godless, librul, baby-killing, eggheads who listen to NPR instead of Rush Limbaugh.

They're confused, but when you dismiss them with language like that you're definitely missing something. Ideology can be blinding. Open your eyes.

The alternative to the 'civilized' choices is populism, something off the table.

Exactly. And that's what's emerging and pushing itself into the circles of governance. The attempt is being made by both the Democrats and the Republicans to coopt the populist movements of left and right, respectively, and in both cases it's not working. If the attempt by the Democrats was working, they'd have won last year's election. If the attempt by the Republicans was working, we'd have an agreement by now to raise the debt ceiling. It's all flying out of control, and there will soon be no way to keep things off the table.

The Tea Party so far is just a front for the GOP.

Wrong. That was the plan, but the plan isn't working. The controls are breaking down.

This time the GOP wants people to vote on single issues like guns, abortion, school prayer, and creationism.

What do you mean, "this time"? That's an old strategy, decades old. The point is, all the old tools are no longer working. The idea is to farm these movements for votes -- not to let them control policy. But now, on the Republican side, the Tea Party in exerting control of policy, in ways that the corporate elite would prefer not to see. You think Wall Street wants the government to default on its obligations? That's madness. Of course they don't! But the Tea Party line is that anything that cuts the government down to size is good.

But -- right-wing populism often becomes left-wing populism. The Tea Party Movement has the potential to become a Frankenstein monster.

First of all, wean yourself from the mainstream media, look at the sources of information that are out there, and you'll see that left-wing population was there first. That's why the Democrats won in 2006 and 2008. Secondly, part of what I'm saying here is that the Tea Party has already become a Frankenstein monster. You won't see that until you remove your preconception that it's all an orchestrated GOP front. It's not. There's some orchestration, yes, or at least attempted orchestration, but the thing is real, it's genuinely populist, and it's backfiring badly.

I think that you are right.

Well, good. But what I'm really saying here is that we're already seeing the opening salvos.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Just because she thinks that the situation should have been investigated doesn't make her a 9/11 Truther. And even if she was, so what? Much happened under the Bush watch that was filled with lies. So to question the happenings at that time just might make sense. I mean, look at Pearl Harbor and the mistakes made prior to that needless attack.

Questioning is something we American people do not do too well. If it is in a history book or spoonfed to us by the media, we have a tendency to believe it. If it is repeated enough, it becomes a belief system of group think that's etched in stone. Anyone who comes along and actually tells the other side of the story is too often called a nut case. This has happened throughout history, the demonizing of anyone who goes against main stream thinking. And it is to our demise.

We prefer historians and politicians that parrot what we want to hear. Look at the history of what happened to the Native American Indian. We basically terrorized, propagandized, demonized and eventually destroyed their culture and planted them on a reservation of our choosing. We didn't get the real story until much later, and even that was watered down so as to dilute the barbaric treatment of those human beings. This is what happens when we don't question and discount historians and politicians who are trying to tell us the other side of history.

We currently have a Money Party that upstanding leaders like Cynthia, Dennis Kucinich, Russ Feingold, Ralph Nader, Bernie Sanders and others have been attempting to warn us about. These are some of the very people who will not be bribed or owned by big donors, unlike most of the politicians in Washington. The Money Party/Corporations own most politicians. They are an equal opportunity employer. They don't care which side of the aisle that they bribe, as long as they will do their bidding. Yet the very people who will not be bought, are demonized and discounted. The very people who are trying to help the oppressed. This is why I find it so sad when some of those who will suffer the most in this economic crisis bite the very helping hands that want to assist them.

Well said.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

First and foremost, a GC needs to be seen as a leader, not a flag-bearer. Cynthia McKinney can't be a GC, any more than you can, and for much the same reason. The problems of the real world come in shades of gray. Leaders know that and deal it. Flag-beares never have to ... and don't.

Why can't she do both?

Originally Posted by JDG 66

vs.



Ho hum:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_McKinney

...McKinney's father stated on Atlanta television that "Jews have bought everybody ... J-E-W-S."

...she was among 100 prominent Americans and 40 family members of those who were killed on 9/11 who signed the 9/11 Truth Movement statement, calling for new investigations of what they perceived as unexplained aspects of the 9/11 events.

On September 28, 2008, at a press conference, McKinney announced that she had spoken with a constituent whose son was a National Guardsman. The constituent claimed her son had disposed of 5,000 bodies for the Department of Defense during the week of Hurricane Katrina. She further believed that there were credible reports that the bodies were prisoners who had all been crushed by tanks, shot in the head, painted blue, and dumped in a Louisiana swamp. McKinney said that the story had been corroborated by anonymous "insider" sources.

On Freedom:

Cynthia McKinney stated “On a previous visit to Libya, I was able to learn about the Green Book, and the form of direct democracy that is advocated in The Green Book. When I went back to the United States, I spoke with Senator Mike Gravel, who was a presidential candidate, just like me, in 2008, because he too is pushing a form of direct democracy for the United States. That is because the government of the United States fails to represent the interests of the American people now. The government is here, and the people of the US are here.”

L'Etat, Cest Moi:

On the morning of March 29, 2006, McKinney entered the Longworth House Office Building's southeast entrance and proceeded past the security checkpoint, walking around the metal detector. Members of Congress have identifying lapel pins and are not required to pass through metal detectors. The officers present failed to recognize McKinney as a member of Congress because she was not wearing the appropriate lapel pin and had recently changed her hairstyle. She proceeded westward down the ground floor hallway and about halfway down the hallway was stopped by United States Capitol Police officer Paul McKenna, who states that he had been calling after her: "Ma'am, Ma'am!"; at that time it is reported that McKinney struck the officer...



-FWIW, Both I and His Imperial Hohenzollern Majesty has pointed out that Zinn is a sucky historian who analyzes history in an incompetent fashion. The case I remember is Zinn's "analysis" of the atomic bombings.



-It was investigated. At length. At taxpayer expense. Signing the Truther thing makes her a Truther.



...and apparently, so are you...



-Like, what?



-Uh, there's a difference between "making mistakes" (which have already been investigated at length at taxpayer expense), and planning the death of Americans in order to start a war.

Uh, Deb, the Japanese (you know, the ones who launched the attack) didn't think it was "needless". Which is why we cleaned their clocks.

BTW, I thought this:

...was anyother one of those weird porn sites which keep popping up. Go figure...

How can you say it was investigated? And since when do we stop looking for the truth?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

In re Cynthia McKinney, here is a contemporary account of perhaps her most controversial statement and its aftermath. I don't think it sounds like a possible GC because she made highly provocative statements and then backed away from them when challenged. The statements may have contributed to her primary defeat the next year.

Democrat Implies Sept. 11 Administration Plot

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 12, 2002; Page A16

Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) is calling for an investigation into whether President Bush and other government officials had advance notice of terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 but did nothing to prevent them. She added that "persons close to this administration are poised to make huge profits off America's new war."

In a recent interview with a Berkeley, Calif., radio station, McKinney said: "We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11th. . . . What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? . . . What do they have to hide?"

McKinney declined to be interviewed yesterday, but she issued a statement saying: "I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case."

Bush spokesman Scott McLellan dismissed McKinney's comments.

"The American people know the facts, and they dismiss such ludicrous, baseless views," he said. "The fact that she questions the president's legitimacy shows a partisan mind-set beyond all reason."

In the radio conversation, McKinney delivered a stinging attack on the administration. In 2000, she charged, Bush forces "stole from America our most precious right of all, the right to free and fair elections." With the September attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania, McKinney said, "an administration of questionable legitimacy has been given unprecedented power."

She suggested that the administration was serving the interests of a Washington-based investment firm, the Carlyle Group, which employs a number of high-ranking former government officials from both parties. Former president George H.W. Bush -- the current president's father -- is an adviser to the firm. McKinney said the war on terrorism has enriched Carlyle Group investors by enhancing the value of a military contractor partly owned by the firm.

Carlyle Group spokesman Chris Ullman asked: "Did she say these things while standing on a grassy knoll in Roswell, New Mexico?"

During her five terms in office, McKinney has often given voice to radical critiques of U.S. policy, especially in the Middle East. She defied the State Department to investigate assertions that international sanctions are brutalizing innocent Iraqis.

With her comments concerning Sept. 11, McKinney, 47, seems to have tapped into a web of conspiracy theories circulating during the past six months among people who believe that the government is partially -- or entirely -- to blame for last year's attacks, which killed more than 3,000 people.

"What is undeniable is that corporations close to the administration have directly benefited from the increased defense spending arising from the aftermath of September 11th," McKinney charged. "America's credibility, both with the world and with her own people, rests upon securing credible answers to these questions."

None of McKinney's colleagues has embraced her allegations, but a few said they are familiar with the theories.

"I've heard a number of people say it," said Rep. Melvin Watt (D-N.C.), who quickly added, "I can't say that it would be a widely held view" among lawmakers.

Some lawmakers have a less charitable view of McKinney's penchant for publicity. Rep. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) said McKinney is simply trying to impress her constituents.

"She's demonstrated at home an ability to win," he said, "and she's demonstrated in Washington a total lack of responsibility in her statements."

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), a friend of McKinney's, said the Georgia Democrat is adept at seizing on "red-meat" issues that resonate with her political base and have helped her fend off a series of GOP challengers.

"She's not as random as people think," Kingston said. "People always want to hear a political conspiracy theory."

Staff writer David Von Drehle contributed to this report.

How has she backed away? She still wants the investigations? And she stood by what she believed, which is why a bunch of Georgia inbreds refused to vote for her.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Quite appropriate comments, likely completely factual, and very GC worthy!!

Exactly, Eric.

Originally Posted by Lady Vagina

How has she backed away? She still wants the investigations? And she stood by what she believed, which is why a bunch of Georgia inbreds refused to vote for her.

She backed away as follows:

"In a recent interview with a Berkeley, Calif., radio station, McKinney said: "We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11th. . . . What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? . . . What do they have to hide?"

"McKinney declined to be interviewed yesterday, but she issued a statement saying: "I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case."

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

She backed away as follows:

"In a recent interview with a Berkeley, Calif., radio station, McKinney said: "We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11th. . . . What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? . . . What do they have to hide?"

"McKinney declined to be interviewed yesterday, but she issued a statement saying: "I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case."

How is that backing away from anything? She is just discussing the situation. There's a lot we don't know. She said nothing "conspiratorial" she needs to back away from; just what the evidence that is known points to: Bush knew about the coming attacks and did nothing. It is a reported fact that the president was warned by intelligence. He went on vacation. And certainly a lot of people profited from all the defense buildup. And he was illegitimate, having stolen the election in Florida and backed up by the Republican Supreme Court. Bush is the worst president we ever had, by far. He belongs in jail. To say so is not "partisan" since she is not even a Democrat, and in any case it is to be patriotic and concerned about truth and justice. These days people in other countries seem to care more about democracy than Americans do. And to question authority and mainstream opinion gets you criticized or worse.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

They're confused, but when you dismiss them with language like that you're definitely missing something. Ideology can be blinding. Open your eyes.

I may be speaking more of the organizers of Tea Party movements. But now that the Tea Party has gotten some Representatives,Senators, and Governors elected who might not otherwise have gotten a chance, then those politicians have the duty to get results while not offending too many people. This is Stage 2, and Election 2012 begins stage 3. In view of the fluidity of history, especially in a 4T (and I suggest Republican Spain as a possible and dangerous model) we don't know how Stage 3 will play out.

Exactly. And (populism is) what's emerging and pushing itself into the circles of governance. The attempt is being made by both the Democrats and the Republicans to coopt the populist movements of left and right, respectively, and in both cases it's not working. If the attempt by the Democrats was working, they'd have won last year's election. If the attempt by the Republicans was working, we'd have an agreement by now to raise the debt ceiling. It's all flying out of control, and there will soon be no way to keep things off the table.

We now have the purest political gridlock that we have had since... well, the failure of George W. Bush. Gridlock is never a stable situation. Nobody expects any political solutions to anything non-trivial until January 2013. Such implies a complete sweep of the Government by one Party so that it can enforce a mandate.

Wrong. Th(e Tea Party Movement as a GOP front) was the plan, but the plan isn't working. The controls are breaking down.

Yes, that is so. Tea Party crowds are no longer as large as they were. Enthusiasm for the politicians that Tea Party voters went for has often become negative. More significantly, look at the approval ratings for Governors Walker in Wisconsin, Snyder in Michigan, Kasich in Ohio, and Scott in Florida. Those pols are pure corporate stooges. Nobody wants to be rendered destitute for the gain of elites. Nobody wants the government to sell off public assets cheaply to profiteers -- except for would-be profiteers and their enablers. Nobody wants government to sell out its commitment to the public to hustlers who would get the government funds as profit and make what the government provided at minimal cost into an excuse for bilking clients subsequently obliged to pay more and get less.

"U R $crewed" is workable politics only where there is no democracy.

What do you mean, "this time"? That's an old strategy, decades old. The point is, all the old tools are no longer working. The idea is to farm these movements for votes -- not to let them control policy. But now, on the Republican side, the Tea Party in exerting control of policy, in ways that the corporate elite would prefer not to see. You think Wall Street wants the government to default on its obligations? That's madness. Of course they don't! But the Tea Party line is that anything that cuts the government down to size is good.

When Wall Street recognizes that what is good for America as a whole is good for itself, and its desired optimum of "All For the Few" appears impossible, then things will change. Business subsidies must go. Dubya-era tax cuts will have to ride off with the sunset. Ordinarily a political party that meets so smashing defeats as in 2006 and 2008 needs time to rebuild workable coalitions for the next electoral victory; instead the GOP used totalitarian-style propaganda to offer the bait that precedes the switch. We now endure the switch. For how long? I see a Pyrrhic victory for the GOP in 2010. If I have to predict the results of the 2012 election now based on current polling I see three headlines:

OBAMA WINS SECOND TERM

DEMOCRATS BARELY KEEP SENATE

RETURN OF THE BLUE DOGS

"Return of the Blue Dogs" of course implies the replacement of one set of conservatives with another set.

First of all, wean yourself from the mainstream media, look at the sources of information that are out there, and you'll see that left-wing population was there first. That's why the Democrats won in 2006 and 2008. Secondly, part of what I'm saying here is that the Tea Party has already become a Frankenstein monster. You won't see that until you remove your preconception that it's all an orchestrated GOP front. It's not. There's some orchestration, yes, or at least attempted orchestration, but the thing is real, it's genuinely populist, and it's backfiring badly.

The Democrats won in 2006 because of the perception of incompetence and corruption of the Bush Administration. In 2008 it was because of the economic meltdown. In 2010 Americans got impatient. In 2012... I just may be a bit slow in recognizing the Tea Party Movement as a Frankenstein monster. I will need to see evidence that counts -- elections. The economic elites are satisfied with the political consequences to the extent that right-wing Republicans do exactly as they are told to do. But will they keep, let alone enhance, those consequences in 2012? Supporting a right-wing, but non-violent cause may not be 'adequate' in 2012.

Mainstream media? Is DailyKos mainstream? FoX Propaganda Channel is mainstream, and such is the problem.

Economic elites often turn to violence to get their way. That has been commonplace in labor-management disputes in America (aside from racist lynchings such is the bulk of political violence in America, and Labor has been far from innocent). So far it looks as if labor-management issues are the nexus of this Crisis Era. This is a 4T, and people must wean themselves away from denying the possibility of the unthinkable, including the demise of American democracy as an "inside job".

... But what I'm really saying here is that we're already seeing the opening salvos.

We are past the point of no return.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Sadly, this appears to be an international problem. The Tea Party may be our source, but you hear the same arguments from the Europeans and many parts of Asia. Obviously, the philosophical underpinnings have become the assumed state of knowledge, and concepts that should be considered conjecture at most are now the conventional wisdom. I'm not sure that can be overcome quickly, unless a financial catastrophe occurs.

The Right got their message across by persistance over thee decades. We should assume a similar time frame to turn the tide to the left. Planning on an interveneing catastrophe isn't planning. It's a death wish.

I don't understand it. I gave an example of an issue that works for the Left like Rightwing issues work for the right. Protectionism s easy to understand and the opposing argument for free trade complex and nuanced. But I haven't seen anything like that from grassroots groups.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I may be speaking more of the organizers of Tea Party movements.

Perhaps, but the participants in the movement have their own agenda. I have no doubt whatsoever that the Republican Party, together with right-wing activists and promoters like the Koch brothers, have made concerted attempts to harness the movement, but they did not originate it, and it is not wholly the product of their machinations. "Astroturf" was a false accusation. We should not believe our own propaganda on this.

Yes, that is so. Tea Party crowds are no longer as large as they were. Enthusiasm for the politicians that Tea Party voters went for has often become negative. More significantly, look at the approval ratings for Governors Walker in Wisconsin, Snyder in Michigan, Kasich in Ohio, and Scott in Florida. Those pols are pure corporate stooges. Nobody wants to be rendered destitute for the gain of elites. Nobody wants the government to sell off public assets cheaply to profiteers -- except for would-be profiteers and their enablers. Nobody wants government to sell out its commitment to the public to hustlers who would get the government funds as profit and make what the government provided at minimal cost into an excuse for bilking clients subsequently obliged to pay more and get less.

Exactly. We are seeing a powerful backlash against the Republicans at this point, just as we saw a backlash against the Democrats in 2010; however, it is a mistake to think of this popular reaction in either case as some sort of see-saw between left and right extremes. What it is, is that in both cases the party's supporters expected it to act in a counter-corporatist manner and were disappointed.

When Wall Street recognizes that what is good for America as a whole is good for itself, and its desired optimum of "All For the Few" appears impossible, then things will change.

I don't think it has to wait for that. Wall Street is opposed in the matter of the government default/debt ceiling limit, but that's more or less a no-brainer for people whose entire business involves money and finance. Only a person highly ignorant about money and finance would approve. But if we wait for an enlightened Wall Street we will wait until doomsday. A populist surge is what is called for here and what I believe will happen.

Mainstream media? Is DailyKos mainstream? FoX Propaganda Channel is mainstream, and such is the problem.

On economic issues, Fox is indeed mainstream. On social issues, it's not. But on the economy, there is little difference between Fox and its competitors, or between all of the cable stations and the broadcast media. Even the print media are corrupted. All of them follow the same playbook. Now, on social issues Fox does follow a different one; that's because it's consciously appealing to the self-identified right. That's a matter of playing to its audience. But on economic issues, the other outlets, not just Fox, misrepresent reality so as to make it seem as if the brackets allowable in politics are also those allowable according to the will of the people, and to suppress news of liberal activism while emphasizing news of activism on the right.

DailyKos is not mainstream media as I'm using the phrase. It's self-defined as left-leaning, although since it's an open forum one can find a wide range of opinions expressed as well as a wide range of writing quality. One cannot rely on what is reported there, nor is it a news outlet, but it's a good place to start, as the diaries will include links to a lot of other material available on line. Or hell, just pick a subject and do a Google search. The truth is out there, among lots of non-truth. You have to be careful and double-check everything. But the First Amendment is still on the books, censorship in practice is not allowed, and the deception is worked by convincing people that the corporate-controlled news outlets are really giving them the full, fair, and balanced story when they aren't -- not by directly suppressing speech. It's curable. But you have to recognize the disease before you'll try.

We are past the point of no return.

I agree. Things get really interesting from here.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Actually, if you're talking about understanding what needs to be done, FDR is a terrible (but nonetheless encouraging) example. What needed to be done was what finally was done: encourage labor unions, provide a basic social safety net, and spend massive amounts of money to jump-start the economy and pull us out of the Depression. He did the first two reluctantly, near or at the end of his first term (second pres. term of the Crisis), under pressure from the left inside and outside Congress. He did the last one in his third term (fourth pres. term of the Crisis) under pressure from Japanese fighter-bombers. FDR did a whole lot of things that either amounted to band-aids on arterial bleeding (e.g. the CCC, WPA, and other relief programs to ease the plight of the unemployed), or were totally wrong-headed (e.g. the AAA and NRA). These were the things he did under his own steam: basic compassion moves that were heart-appropriate but betrayed zero understanding of economics, and just plain stupid stuff.

You missed my point. We don't need real solutions, we already have a good idea what those are, but cannot implement them. What we need are political solutions, solve the political problem and the rest comes easy. FDR is a good example because his party gained seats in 1934. By this time the economic crisis belonged to FDR, not Hoover. So how did FDR do that. BY creating an impression in voters minds that he was doing something about the crisis. When FDR came to office the economic was in free-fall due to deflationary spiral. What was required was immediate cessation of deflation. FDR stopped deflation dead in its tracks by a series of executive orders, no involvement of a Congress still too mired in conservative-think to pass anything useful. Results we immediate, the next month the price level was up and it was inflation all the way. It may not have cleaned up much of the mess, but it was enough to put more liberals into Congress in 1934 and 1936, by which time he had a Congress that was sufficiently free in conservative-think to actually pass the sort of legislation you describe.

Now why did FDR issue those executive orders? Because his party had thrown in with the free-silver populists in 1896 and so this was a policy move for which there was significant support within his party.

So Roosevelt is actually clear proof that, if the pressure is right and the ideas are floating around, we don't absolutely need a leader who knows what the hell he's doing, although of course that's nice to have.

This was my point. What is needed is ideas that have a movement backing them.

There are plenty of ideas from the left floating around and resulting in movements; you just don't see those ideas because you, like most Xers and even a higher percentage of Boomers, have gotten into the habit of actually believing what the traditional media tell you and, even more important (because they rarely out-and-out lie) assuming they're giving you good coverage. They're not.

It's not the media's job to get your movement's message out. With the internet its easier than ever to get a message out, e.g. the Arab spring.

Why, when we have movements on to recall Republican legislators in Wisconsin,

This was the only movement I could think of, and its essentially reactionary.

and a heavily-attended Netroots Nation this year, and huge amounts of writing available on line from a left-wing perspective, do the media cover the Tea Party but none of the leftist insurgency...

I did some searches looking for movements on the left. I got a this reference to stuff with a world systems perspective. I recognized Christopher Chase Dunn, who I believe has cited me before. There's lots of stuff on foreign left movements. There's an article with reasons why left movements have been ineffective.

I found a number of articles by Richard Wolff all talking how conditions are ripe for left movements. I agree, they have been for a long time. But he doesn't actually reference any actual movements that are out there taking advantage of this environment. It's not like politically useful ideas aren't available, protectionism is an example of a simple-to-understand, easy-to-defend, hard to attack idea that would actually be a step in the right direction (sort of like FDRs executive orders). It could small benefits that would strongly impact certain groups who would then form a natural constituency for policy enactor.

Mike, what you say here about a deficit of ideas on the left is simply not fact.

You keep saying this. Yet like Wolff, you don't provide any actual examples of movements like the Tea Party on the Left. Can you provide some urls of left movements of the scale of the tea party? Surely they would have websites outlining their positions, how to join etc. Do you belong to such a movement? How often do you meet, how many hours a week do you volunteer?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

This was my point. What is needed is ideas that have a movement backing them.

Very well, then I agree.

It's not the media's job to get your movement's message out.

Now you're missing my point, which is that the movements exist. The bit about the mainstream media was merely a hypothesis for why you don't realize this.

Can you provide some urls of left movements of the scale of the tea party?

http://www.boldprogressives.org/

http://front.moveon.org/

Either of those is bigger than all of the Tea Party groups combined in terms of overall membership. Then there's the recall and overturn movements in Wisconsin and Ohio. On social issues, the gay rights movement dwarfs its opponents and is winning. Then there are the environmental movement organizations, the labor-advocacy organizations (unions and union PACs), etc. It's there, and if you think about it you know it's there.

Are these movements "like the Tea Party"? No, in two respects, other than the obvious fact that they're on the left. One, they're bigger. And two, they don't tend as much to guerrilla theater, preferring less showy and more networky ways to get things across. I suspect that may be changing due to sheer anger at what the Republicans are trying to pull off, but of course that has nothing to do with ideas, which is what we were talking about. And on that score:

http://www.politiquessociales.net/IM...an_economy.pdf

http://leftfocus.blogspot.com/2010/1...eas-still.html

http://www.ips-dc.org/

Not only do these movements indeed exist, I suspect that in many cases you already knew they did. But for some reason, you forget that. If it's not because of the illusion created by the mainstream media, then I don't know why you would, which is why I brought that up.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

An inevitable consequence of this is that over time, the positions of the parties become out of step with what most of the people want and expect. Eventually, a conflict between the owner class and the remainder of the people would develop and become increasingly overt.

Do you really believe that this hasn't been going on long enough for "eventually" to have gotten here already?

Since the democratic features of our government have only been corrupted and not actually repealed, this has the potential of pushing a rebellion into the circles of government itself and overturning corporate control.

THis sounds like wishful thinking.

This insurgency drove the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006 and of the White House in 2008.

Look at Obama's first two years. Here Democrats had a bigger majority than Republicans have had since the 1920's and they enacted a Republican health care plan. A real left insurgency would not bother with putting a bunch of moderate Republicans into office, which is what happened in 2006 and 2008. I think the forces that helped Democrats win are more like those at Daily Kos, Democratic rather than Left.

What I expect to see next year, if I'm right about that, is the issue of corporate dominance and of disparity of wealth come to the surface as the driving issue of the election: exactly the opposite of what is intended.

That's a good test, but your record (2010 election results) on testable predictions based on your thesis has not been encouraging.

There has been a lot of discussion here about what happened in last fall's elections, and whether the result reflected voters staying home. Nate Silver's column today confirms that indeed those results did reflect voters staying home. But the voters who stayed home weren't mainly liberals. They were moderates. The percentage of self-identified moderates dropped among voters. Some moderates, indeed, became conservatives.

What happened, actually, according to a Pew poll Silver trusts, is that every group--liberal, moderate and conservative Democrats and Republicans--was less likely to vote in 2008 except conservative Republicans. They turned out in far greater numbers than anyone else. The enthusiasm gap, Silver says, was between them and everyone else.

And that's why, he points out, Republicans don't want to compromise on anything--they know they owe their seats to extreme conservatives. (Of course, Grover Norquist plays a role as well.)

The Democrats have failed to give anyone else any reason to be enthusiastic.

You've given me a bit to chew on. I can give you some comments on some of these
You

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Now you're missing my point, which is that the movements exist.

So far I haven't seen any that correpsond to what I'm talking about. What I am talking about are movements that push simple "push-button" tonics for dealing with the economic problems from a left perspective that are easy to understand and have widespread appeal. A historical example would be free silver, a version of which eventually was the solution to the problem it had been intended to fight. A modern example of such a policy would be a tarif, or medicare for all. The left has lots of narrow-focused movements about social issues (gay marriage for example) which have been very successful. I haven't seen the equivalent for economic issues, except for the Tea party with their one-note symphony on reducing the budget now that a Democrat is president.

1. http://front.moveon.org/ This one I did know about, I've been on their mailing list for some years. They aren't focused on the sort of simple economic notions that could buildmemes that would be hard for the Right to fight

2. The recall and overturn movements in Wisconsin and Ohio. This one is economic and a good thing to see, but its reactionary, not prescriptive.

3. the gay rights movement dwarfs its opponents and is winning. Not economic

4. environmental movement organizations Not perceived as economic

5. the labor-advocacy organizations (unions and union PACs), etc. This is the closest thing to what I am looking for. An example of a simple policy they promoted was card check. The problem is they were around 40 years ago and continuously since then and have been losing because their issues can only fire up union members. They do not address the concerns of those not unionized.

I suspect that may be changing due to sheer anger at what the Republicans are trying to pull off, but of course that has nothing to do with ideas, which is what we were talking about. And on that score:

http://www.politiquessociales.net/IM...an_economy.pdf

http://leftfocus.blogspot.com/2010/1...eas-still.html

http://www.ips-dc.org/

Anger matters a lot. By ideas I don't mean technical plans likethe first of these. There's been lots of these. As I said we pretty much know how to solve the problem technically, its how to solve the political problem, which is, how do you destroy the GOP as a functioning party for a decade? This is the prerequisite for any effective action. Ideas like this aren't going destroy the Repubicans at the polls.

The second one seems to be an individual website, no apparent movement that I can see.

The third site is a think tank, that intends to serve movements.

What I am looking for is a movement that deals with real economic fears. For example, losing your job today is scary because its so hard to find another. And so many lose their jobs because of arbitrary financial deals that often serve no functional purpose besides enrich the dealmakers. Some of these involve outsourcing jobs overseas. A tariff deals directly with the last of these because goods and services perfomed overseas for consumption in the US would be taxed, making them more expensive that doing the same function here. A movement that simply talked about tariffs and protectionism and which gained ground would cause uncertainty in the business community reduce the enthusiasm for outsourcing. It would encourage corporate America to fight this new meme. They would have to argue the free trade position, which is very technical wonky stuff, sort of like what Democrats are often defending.

To threaten free trade means to threaten the decades-long American quest for "stability". Ricardo's original case for free trade assumed that capital did not move between nations, which didn't happen in his time. The reason why was that capital invested overseas could be confiscated by the local government at any time. Even in the 20th century nationalization of foreign-owned property was not uncommon, and so capital tended to stay in the industrialized Western nations where it was safe. Conditions in which capital is not safe is "instability" and America would intervene to prevent this. The eventual blowback was 911 and now with the Arab spring instability is rearing its head. Calls for protectionism here would fan the flames of nationalism that could break down the interconnected work in which we live today. This is scary stuff for the Davos crowd. How do you stop a populist meme like this?

The battle is always between the status-quo conservatives versus the radicals. The conservatives always win, but they have to give ground to do so. What I want (and I suspect you too) is for the winning conservatives to be those on the left (i.e. Liberals) as opposed to those one the Right, i.e. Blue Dog Dems and (former) moderate Republicans. For this to happen you must have radicals on the Left who are just as successful as the radicals on the Right at generating political excitement and attention. We don't have them right now and so the best you can get is moderate Republican policy that takes a massive Democratic Senate majority to bring about.

I did not comment on all of the links you posted, some I am still evaluating. If you know of any others that might fit the sort of thing I'm looking for, post it here.

Thanks

Can you say "one term president?"

Originally Posted by Bloomberg

While history has shown the unemployment rate to be a leading indicator of an incumbent’s success, Plouffe said Americans won’t base their votes on it.

“The average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers,” Plouffe said. “People won’t vote based on the unemployment rate, they’re going to vote based on: ‘How do I feel about my own situation? Do I believe the president makes decisions based on me and my family.

***


Since World War II, no U.S. president has won re-election with a jobless rate above 6 percent, with the exception of Ronald Reagan, who faced 7.2 percent unemployment on Election Day in 1984. The median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg puts the unemployment rate at 8.2 percent in the third quarter of next year.

“Their decision next year will be based upon two things,” Plouffe said. “How do I feel about things right now and then, ultimately, campaigns are always much more about the future and who do I think has got the best idea, the best vision for where to take the country?”

Get ready for the (Michelle) Bachman(4th) turning overlord because you ain't seen nothing yet.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Can you say "one term president?"



Get ready for the (Michelle) Bachman(4th) turning overlord because you ain't seen nothing yet.

As it stands right now, Herman Cain will get my vote. Not these Neo-Con's-who-took-over-the-Tea-Party wannabe's.

I still want to know more about Huntsman.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

As it stands right now, Herman Cain will get my vote. Not these Neo-Con's-who-took-over-the-Tea-Party wannabe's.

I still want to know more about Huntsman.

Do you think he'll still be in the race by the time the Virginia primaries happen?