Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘republican’

As expected the first presidential debate was deprived of content, meaning and effective moderation and full of biased rhetoric. Overall I’m convinced that the two senators where not even debating, let alone debating the topics that needed to be debated. If one observes the finer details, then it’s possible to see how both McCain and Obama avoided debating each other and avoided discussing key points that would have given the debate any significance. In this critique I want to cover some details that had a large impact on how the debate was conducted and I want to point out a particular instance where senator John McCain had neglected to raise a major issue to avoid actually debating.

A large part of the debate was focused on the financial crisis that is affecting Wall Street. It is clear to see that the failures of Wall Street were the result of a lack of oversight in the housing market. As Marx says, “if you give them enough rope they will eventually hang themselves with it.” This topic in the debate contained many issues where McCain had a chance to shine but when asked about the financial crisis on Wall Street John McCain outright avoided debating.

In 2005, John McCain along with many republicans proposed legislation to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but it never passed because the democrats blocked it. The bill returned in 2007 only to be opposed by senator Obama and to die on the senate floor. Take a look at Obama’s recent and present economic advisers: Jim Johnson was the managing director of Lehman Brothers between 1985 and 1990, CEO of Fannie Mae 91-98, and now on the board of Goldman Sachs; Franklin Raines was the vice chairman of Fannie Mae 91-96 and CEO of Fannie Mae 99-04, who received a $25 million golden parachute when he left Fannie. As the second highest person of all the senators to be paid-off, Obama received 45 times more money in contributions from these Wall Street crooks than McCain had.  The republican candidate had many opportunities to expose Obama for his poor judgment. But they didn’t debate, instead they talked about earmarks for 15 minutes and ended up comparing their bracelets.

The language expressed by the two senators was in the wrong voice for a debate. If one observes, they were using proper nouns and rarely to almost never addressing one another. In wasn’t until 20 minutes into the debate that Obama began to refer to his opponent in the 2nd person. Although as the debate progressed he slipped back into the 3rd person, which seemed to be the only way he could address the republican senator. As Tim Daily had said “like a 6th grade drama teacher”, Jim Lehrer, the moderator, tried to get the two candidates to debate.  Despite Lehrer’s soft nudges, McCain failed to acknowledge the notion while Obama was coerced once or twice only to find his way back to the comfortable and safe 3rd person voice.

The very construction of the stage was designed in order to keep this sham from being a debate. The podium was topped with a desk whereby they could conceal and refer to notes. A podium without a desk, or at least an open one, would force them to use what they know and not refer to what they don’t, thus they would have debated their points instead of just listing them. The podiums were positioned pointing inward 20 degrees to ensure that the candidates look at the moderator and not at each other, hitherto distorting the face to face ambiance. McCain barely looked at Obama and instead just stared out into the black of the audience rarely acknowledging the senator from Illinois.  Not just the positioning and form were problems, but the quantity of podiums represented the biggest intended obstacle. We have 6 presidential candidates this year who are on enough state ballots to win but only two podiums to conduct a debate.

I cannot call this a debate without paring my index and middle fingers together and putting them in the air. They weren’t debating; they were giving speeches as though this were a press conference. My favorite part of the “debate” was when the candidates thanked the commission for hosting and having them on. As the presidential candidates of the Democrat and Republican parties, they effectively run the debate commission. That’s like the boss thanking his employees for allowing him to come to work and manage for the day.

This was a mockery of a debate. If it has one merit, it shows just how the Democrats and Republicans play the American public for fools. What these parties need to understand is that they are the fools, because we are aware of their game. The news media that regurgitates their sloppy dialog and one liners doesn’t represent us. It is only caricaturing our opinions with blunt crayons. We the people don’t care about lapel pins or lipstick; we can tell when responding to a problem that Sarah Palin is as Paul Krugman said more like “a freshman in college who hasn’t read the material and is failing to answer an essay question”; we the people know that these two parties aren’t worried about us – the homeowners and taxpayers – in this crisis, because they are putting the burden of their advisor’s and colleague’s poor choices on our backs and on the backs of our children. Instead what we the people care about is our future and our children’s future and what we the people know is that these aren’t going to be debates until the commission allows the 3rd parties to attend. When we called and wrote to the commission, to the sponsors of the commission, to the Democrats and Republicans who own the commission and demanded that the 3rd parties debate, we were speaking with one voice that reflected our cognition exclaiming “open the debates!”

In a debate there are winners and losers. And as the independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader had said about this the first of three presidential debates “Militarism won. Nuclear power won. The bloated military budget won. Corporate crime won. Bailing out Wall Street crooks won. Peace advocates lost. Workers lost. Tax Payers lost. Solar Energy lost.”

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Please think wiser about the effects of a third party. In regards to the 2000 election, don’t just add 2 to 48 to beat 49; it doesn’t work that way. Suggesting that a third party is a “spoiler” is just plain political bigotry. We all have the right to run for president so under the same logic either we are all spoilers or none of us are.

Speaking with Marx in mind, the progression of government under capitalism is purely economical. The democrat and the republican parties are corporate parties. Since the corporation was given “personhood” in 1886, (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad) it achieved the same constitution rights that you and I share. This has corrupted our government beyond any measure, criminal wars, torture, economic depression, the list goes on and on.

To break away from corporate and political slavery, we will need to think and vote different this year. He’s not the president we deserve but he’s the president we need, vote Nader.

votenader.org

Read Full Post »

The effects of the FISA bill and Bush’s warrant-less spy program are starting to show. Below is an article taken from Democracynow.org on 29.7.08 which states that applicants for the Justice Department had their Internet search querys discovered and used against them. If the applicant had searched for certain items they were disqualified, items including “abortion”, “guns”, “Florida recount” and “Homosexual”.

This is another case of our freedoms being destroyed. Now, what you search for on the internet is no longer private information and without a warrant can be discovered and then used against you. Now, we must take care as to what we search for on the internet, for it can be used for discrimination.

The constitution was written not to impower the people but instead to limit the government. Our government has outsteped these boundries and is now begining to exercise its new found abilities to remake itself, to censor its people, and rule in favor of expansion.  So waive goodbye to our first and fourth amendment rights because there’s no better way to censor the public then by restricting what they can know.

This text was taken from Democracynow.org, I did not write it and only wish to share it:

An internal probe has found top Justice Department officials practiced routine political discrimination in hiring for top positions. Applicants were disqualified for everything from links to Democratic Party politics and rumors of being gay or lesbian. Less-experienced Republicans were given priority, including one lawyer who drew raves for his position on “god, guns and gays.” The report focuses on the conduct of senior aides to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, including former top adviser Monica Goodling and former chief of staff Kyle Sampson. The officials relied on a White House internet search technique to vet the political views of potential employees. The aides searched for the applicants’ names, along with such key words as “abortion”, “homosexual”, “Florida recount” and “guns.”

Read Full Post »

Addressing two major problems when electing the Independent Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader.

First, Nader will need major media attention to reach a large enough audience to even possibly become electable and second, the problem that occurs when the electability of the more likely candidate is reduced by the independent vote thus causing the less favorable candidate to win. (In this case I assume the scenario would be the democrat losing votes to the independent causing the republican to win.)

There is a trick to getting Nader access to a major audience. He would need to do one of two things, either get authorization from the private company that controls the debates which happens to be owned by the democrat and republican parties or he can appeal to another corporation to sponsor a debate, one that can offer an audience that can’t be turned down, as to insure the acceptance of the major parties. Nader has accomplished the latter, he has managed to convince Google to fight the aforementioned corporation for its monopoly over the debates. Now Google has agreed to hold an open debate live on YouTube that will allow multiple parties to participate, as long as the party has at least 10% in the national poll.  (Which is 5% less than what the Dem & Rep owned debates accept, even thought getting it doesn’t necessary insure acceptance) Nader, by the way, has around 6%. That being said, I do believe that there is a big problem with Nader not having enough media coverage, you can see him expressing it when he says buzz-word-phrases that attract media attention but he’s been able to sway Google to help him with this obstacle.

Concerning the second probelm, a two party system which forces us into voting for a party in fear that the other party would be elected is in itself problematic to the concept of democracy. (Which we hold to be conducted by a series of free elections) Furthermore, in denying the possibility of a third party we are condemning ourselves to the polarizing and monopolizing effects of a two party system. I think that in exposing this flaw common sense logic tells us that a two party system is counter intuitive to a democracy.

Read Full Post »