Is it possible for a 2-party system to create change?
Can this charismatic Kennedyesque midwest whosit pull a very old piece of wool out of his mouthballs and cover our eyes with a whisperer's words and a new set of veto priorities? will we absolutely accept him if he is merely able to pull us up out of the quicksand we've been in the last 8 going on 28 years?
Don't we Have to have a 3rd party frankenbubba, a Nader or Kucinich, to pull the plug on the corporate acid bath we've been soaking in for lord knows how long? can Anyone pull this off really?
Those are all pretty much questions I ask the air.
3 comments:
what was the comment? who deleted it? was it nice? was it mean?
i think this was a cool post.
frankly i have given up on politics. any and every of it hurts my ears.
the thing is you got your naders we can thank for dubya's presidency.
shep smith really gave him hell for being a spoiler too. challenged him right on the air in front of everyone to own up to being irrelevant. it was pretty mean. but it's also a question someone should ask nader. for nader to go around playing the spoiler role in such an obvious way---i mean that was the practical result of his candidacy---without addressing it directly, is to pretend a whole segment of reality doesn't exist.
the thing about nader is, why start in politics with the presidency? why not run for something smaller first? if this is the way you really want to contribute, to the world, why will nothing but the best and most powerful suit you?
when there's a third party candidate that the money interests want badly enough to fuck with other money interests over, that's when there'll be a third party candidate. but until then, candidates who want an actual shot at anything have to play the established games with the established boneheads.
i think a good word might be oligopoly? what else can you say to describe the unelected powers that be?
Post a Comment