Nonviolent Struggle: 50 Crucial Points
George W. Bush, War Criminal?: The Bush Administration's Liability for 269 War Crimes
Nonviolence: Twenty-Five Lessons from the History of a Dangerous Idea
A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict
Waging Nonviolent Struggle: 20th Century Practice and 21st Century Potential
A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr.
The 35 Articles of Impeachment and the Case for Prosecuting George W. Bush
The Trial of Donald Rumsfeld
The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law
United States v. George W. Bush et al.
The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism
Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush
The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens
The Case for Impeachment
Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush and Cheney
George W. Bush versus the U.S. Constitution: The Downing Street Memos and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Cover-ups in the Iraq War and Illegal Domestic Spying
Verdict and Findings of Fact
Impeach Bush: A Funny Li'l Graphical Novel About the Worstest Pres'dent in the History of Forevar
Pretensions to Empire: Notes on the Criminal Folly of the Bush Administration
The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America
Race and the Race
Race and the Race
Guest blogger, Justin Frank, a noted psychiatrist and author of Bush on the Couch, writes at MediaCurmudgeon:
People are afraid and don't know it - they are afraid of having a black man in the White House, a black family as the first family. It is hard to estimate the level and degree of discomfort, but many voters choose based on identification with the candidate and/or his family.
When people voted for Bush they were seduced into thinking he's the guy that they'd rather have a beer with - a Joe Sixpack kind of guy - rather than one of his uptight East Coast opponents. And they voted for Bush because he was an effective liar: he called him a compassionate conservative when he was neither - though he was compassionate for some conservatives. People voted for him because Rove was expert at tearing down opponents, whether McCain or Kerry.
There are many reasons people are afraid, and most have to do with the economic crisis resulting from the Bush Administration's attitude toward regulation and Wall Street. But I think they have inner fears which they may not recognize until they stand inside the polling booth. These fears are about otherness and blackness - despite feeling that they want change and that they like Obama. They feel positive about what he stands for and the changes he wants to make. And they may be embarrassed by their hidden worries about having a black president. The New Yorker cover only served to send those fears further underground - thoughtful but frightened voters were so mocked by already feel mocked by insensitive Eastern elitists. I think those fears undecideds may have are not to be ridiculed, but need to be addressed directly.
Obama can say and must acknowledge that people have such fears - and must do it on national TV. He can respond to some question like what he's learned or thought about while running. And he can say it in the way only he can - but something like this:
"I think that many people are still not comfortable with having a black president or a black first family. I understand that, and know that those feelings are NOT racist, but are driven by our culture and are somehow natural to us all. The fear makes us reach back for the familiar even though we know in our hearts that in this case - the case of McCain-Palin who don't have America's interests at heart - the familiar will not help America stand up again the way it can and should. I know that I AM the race card - and it's not something I'm playing because the stakes for our future are too great. They are too great to be seen as any kind of game, whether cards or hockey. And in any event, I am bi-racial - so I'm really the bi-racial race card. And I hope you cast your vote for me, even though it may feel risky or uncomfortable to do so. And, if you do vote for me, I guarantee to do everything in my power to justify both your risk and confidence as together we move America into a new and exciting future."
Obama should also be prepared to answer McCain's attacks by explaining that he knows people want a president who is strong and who makes them feel they are in safe hands. He must clarify that strength is about responsibility and regulation. It is about respecting people who hold views different from his, rather than ridiculing them for not understanding. Such ridicule has nothing to do with genuine strength.
He needs to close with his vision for America's hopes and how we can all work together. That would be the reassurance needed after having confronted our culture-based fears.
www.VelvetRevolution.us
I don't buy that.
If people are so uncomfortable with a black man in the White House, then how did Obama get where he is? I am uncomfortable with a person in the White House who does not stand up for the people but instead servers the corporations. Two times now he has gone with the boys -- FISA and Wall Street. Those were not in the interest of the average American. He gets one more strike and he's out for me. There is very little difference between him and McCain, except that McCain and his lady are insane. I would prefer not to have another insane person in the White House.
Obama also can't seem to understand that attacking other nations is not civilized behavior. He thinks if America does it, it must be right to paraphrase Nixon. That is not true. The rule of law applies to every nation. I don't care what color someones skin is.
4Peace
Open Your eyes FOLKS!
We ALL know OBAMA is not a LEFTY. He is just another CLINTON (His team of advisors is almost the Same Clinton had) or perhaps KENNEDY.
OBAMA is NEITHER Kucinich or Nader or PAUL, UNFURTUNATELLY.
BUT he lives the DOORS open AND HE IS THE ONLY CHANCE TO DEFEAT NEOCON NEO-FASCIT McCain. They control the MEDIA and almost the Electoral Process.
OPEN YOUR EYES FOLKS!
THIS IS PERHAPS THE LAST US ELECTIONS!
THE THIRD WORLD WAR IS ABOUT TO START. ISRAEL is about to BOMB IRAN but they NEED US. The NEOCONS are just FABRICATING EXCUSES and LIES AGAIN, the same as in IRAQ.
IRAN has said they will reply to Israel targets and to all US SHIPS and bases in the region.
These NEOCONS are FREEKS and Religious fanatics Most of them believe in the resurrection after a nuclear war.
This is NO TIME for left or right it is a time for SURVIVAL.
WE HAVE TO KICK ALL THE NEOCON CRAP OUT THE RED BUTTON!
Not another Clinton
I agree we are in deep $hit, but I don't want another Clinton! When do we start voting for people who will actually get us out of this mess? Obama won't do it! He is NOT a viable alternative! We have got to stop using the logic of FEAR to keep us locked into the "lesser of two evils" thinking. Now, more than ever, we need to think clearly and STOP THIS! Obama is just more of the same crap!
Al K.
www.votenader.org
Definiton of viability: Not Ralph Nader
Even Ralph Nader doesn't think he'll win, you said so yourself. So you are spinning your wheels for what purpose?
IMPEACH BUSHCO & RICO PNAC/AIPAC...PNAC is Bush/Cheney's "Helter Skelter" !
NO SPOILERS, PERIOD > WE MUST DEFEAT MCCAIN!!!
Here we go again!
Lets go around some more, shall we?
We still have not defined who is a "spoiler"? Cynthia McKinney is NOT Ralph Nader. She is definitely viable, right?
BTW: Do you think "winning" is the ONLY objective. Do you TOTALLY miss the "free speech" aspect of running for election? I suppose you never thought of that!
AL K.
www.votenader.org
So you are trying to convince us to vote for a known loser?
And this will somehow help our future? Tell me something, do you play the stock market?
IMPEACH BUSHCO & RICO PNAC/AIPAC...PNAC is Bush/Cheney's "Helter Skelter" !
NO SPOILERS, PERIOD > WE MUST DEFEAT MCCAIN!!!
I'll sum this up
I don't have any more time today to fiddle with this sillyness, so I will sum this up:
Your definition of a viable candidate: Any candidate that scores higher than some number on some poll. You will not define what the number is or what poll. This is because it can't be done! WE, THE VOTER decide who is viable, not the stinking polls. Your type would not only deny ballot access but the right to free speech by excluding candidates from the debates where their views could be heard. This is the OTHER reason for running for office. That is, to influence policy! Nader has qualified for the ballot in 45 states. His poll numbers would go through the roof if people like you would allow it. The politics of fear has you by the gonads! Your kind will be lulled into a false sense of security if Obama beats McCain. This is truly dangerous! Obama has shown us his true colors when he and McCain both pushed for this insane Wall St bail-out. They are only "viable" by your definition because the media gives them so much attention. The media too is corporate controlled. They obvious have you snowed!
My definition of viable: A candidate who is ready, able and willing to solve our problems. This is NOT McCain or Obama. These two guys ARE our problem, not the solution to it! Electing either is like assigning the fox to guard the hen house! Nader is the must unselfish corporate opponent I have ever seen. He is the best man to stop the corporations that RULE the other two mainstream candidates. He has been doing it ALL HIS LIFE!
We must at least allow Nader and the other 3rd party candidates to help shape the direction of our country by hearing their message. Obama and McCain will keep us on the same path. This path is killing us! It is up to the people of this country to put a stop to it. The Republicrats will continue to perpetrate the mess just as they have always done!
Al K.
www.votenader.org
Nader pull votes from McCain!
Polls are showing that when Ralph Nader is added to the ballot more votes are taken from McCain than from Obama. Could this be racially motivated?
http://www.indparty.com/node/113
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/palmbeach/florid...
Al K
www.votenader.org
Recent History shows Nader is a spoiler
Bush won , TWICE.
IMPEACH BUSHCO & RICO PNAC/AIPAC...PNAC is Bush/Cheney's "Helter Skelter" !
NO SPOILERS, PERIOD > WE MUST DEFEAT MCCAIN!!!
Bush didn't win!
yankhadenuf,
You are not willing to face facts no matter what anyone says. Polls now show Nader is pulling votes from McCain, NOT Obama. Personally I don't care who Nader pulls votes from. I would vote for a tree stump before either of those two corporate stooges!
In case you hadn't noticed, Nader was a write-in candidate in 2004. Bush being "reappointed" couldn't possibly be Naders doing! Both elections were STOLEN by election tampering. Bush did NOT "win" either election, Kerry actually won in 2004 and Gore actually won in 2000. Some people's predetermine beliefs will simply not be influenced by facts!
As to Nader being a "spoiler", GOOD! I want to see him spoil the tar out of the two-party strangle hold they have on all of us, YOU especially!
EDIT: After some consideration I have decided I enjoy picking the brains of narrow-minded people! Mr. yankhadenuf, Please define the word "spoiler" for us. I'm courios.
Al K.
www.votenader.org
Yeah right, look, I love Citizen Nader
just please keep Candidate Nader out of Florida this election year, please.
The rest of us are not willing to risk Mccain because of your tree stump. Thanks.
IMPEACH BUSHCO & RICO PNAC/AIPAC...PNAC is Bush/Cheney's "Helter Skelter" !
NO SPOILERS, PERIOD > WE MUST DEFEAT MCCAIN!!!
Not an answer!
You didn't answer my question! DEFINE "SPOILER", or maybe you can't!
Al K.
Definition of "spoiler" : Ralph Nader
10 reasons why Al Gore lost Florida
By THOMAS C. TOBIN
St. Petersburg Times, published December 14, 2000
http://www.sptimes.com/News/121400/Election2000/10_reasons_why_Al_Gor.sh...
"Ralph Nader
There is little debate that Ralph Nader's candidacy, which captured 90,000 left-leaning votes in Florida, was the biggest single factor in Gore's loss. But Gore might have hurt his cause in a state teaming with committed environmentalists. He refused to take a position on one of the top environmental issues in Florida: a proposed reliever airport that would be sandwiched between two national parks in South Florida. Nader came out solidly against the project, as have others in the Clinton administration. "
PS Speaking of narrow-minded, which of your pre-dispositions caused you to think I'm a "mister" ?
Nader is THE only spoiler?
yankhadenuf,
So you are are telling me that Ralph Nader is the only "spoiler". Ok, lets kick him off the ballot. That leaves Bob Bar, Cynthia McKinney and at least two others. These do NOT qualify as spoilers? After all they are NOT Ralph Nader and therefore NOT "spiolers". Right?
BTW: How is it that God is usually referred to as "He". Sorry Mam!
Al K.
Yes they r, Nader is just the worst spoiler of all the spoilers
PS No worries
PPS The best way I can describe my feelings for Ralph Nader is that I love the man, A LOT, but just not enough to marry him, or vote him for president.
IMPEACH BUSHCO & RICO PNAC/AIPAC...PNAC is Bush/Cheney's "Helter Skelter" !
NO SPOILERS, PERIOD > WE MUST DEFEAT MCCAIN!!!
So, there are SEVERAL spoilers!
OK.. How we are getting somewhere! Nader is the worst of all the "spoilers". So, there must be more than one spoiler. Is Obama a spoiler? He is definitely trying spoil McCain's chances a the White house! Should we kick him off the ballot too?
Al K.
Mccain & Obama both have viable chances to win- NOT spoilers
IMPEACH BUSHCO & RICO PNAC/AIPAC...PNAC is Bush/Cheney's "Helter Skelter" !
NO SPOILERS, PERIOD>
FOR GOD'S SAKE, WE MUST DEFEAT MCCAIN!!!
Chance to win defines spoiler.
Yep.. Now we are making progress. So having a viable chance to win or not determines if a candidate is a spoiler or not. After all, a candidate who has no chance to win must forfeit his constitution rights to free speech. He doesn't deserve it? Right? After all, no candidate in the history of this country has EVER come from behind to win an election, right? Now that we have determined that, who is to decide which candidate has the right to participate in our democracy and what criteria should we use to determine who is viable?
Al K.
www.votenader.org
English definition of spoiler: aka Talk is cheap
We are getting nowhere, so here it is, in plain English, the definition of "spoiler" :
http://www.answers.com/spoiler
"A candidate for office whose chances of winning are slight but who may get enough votes to prevent one of the leading candidates from winning."
Let me explain something to you, I would have much rather seen Al Gore in the Oval Office for the last eight years, or even Kerry in the last 4, than Bush. The price of Nader's "free speech" has been OUR VOTES being cancelled out. That destroys MY free speech. Did that ever occur to you?
IMPEACH BUSHCO & RICO PNAC/AIPAC...PNAC is Bush/Cheney's "Helter Skelter" !
WE MUST DEFEAT MCCAIN!!!