Actually, you're incorrect. Ron Paul's power began taking root during Bush's profligate presidency, which was also fueled by his foreign policy adventurism.
Thanks to all of Juan Cole's readers, especially the people who made a good faith effort at engaging. I have appreciated this conversation, as well as the emails I've gotten at my site on the subject I raised above in my column.
Americans needs to look beyond the two corporate and Wall Street funded parties. We the people only have power if we do not hand it off to politicians in exchange for something that makes our privacy weaker, our economy weaker, and our hand in the world weaker due to militarism at a time when the tools of soft power would go further.
The truth in Marsh’s piece is that the choice between Republican and Democrat candidates does not include one where America avoids driving over its self-made cliff, only a minor difference about when the event occurs.
I would use the words "Democratic candidates," JamesL, but beyond that editorial issue, the graph above is very interesting.
Dominic from London, UK 02/01/2012 at 3:15 pm
The Ralph Nader point is a canard.
The truth is that Al Gore would have won the presidency if he'd simply carried his own home state, TN.
It also in no way gets us out of the hamster wheel of corporate - Wall Street parties that continue to fund the defense industry, as well as ignore poverty and so many other issues, not the least of which is a foreign policy that seems to be predicated on anything but strategic interests.
I appreciate everyone's comments on this piece. As Juan knows all too well, as does anyone else interested in the facts, I was an enemy of puma in '08, which is proved in this piece for those interested. Not only did I bring in an anti-puma writer, but I literally blocked ALL puma from my site. To this day I get hate mail from puma types, which I share in my book.
I'll wear it as a badge of honor that I'm vilified by people wedded to what I call fan politics, people who put party above issues. That's not me anymore.
There's no evidence to date that Mitt Romney can beat Pres. Obama. Mr. Obama is still favored to win in November, which I've been writing for quite some time.
As a political analyst, as well as a recovering partisan, it's not my job to elect anyone. I write the truth as I see it and people will make their own choices.
I remain a liberal, but I have no intention of supporting anyone who is conservative on the issues that matter to me.
We are entering an era where the big two parties are being challenged by all sorts of candidates. That's a good thing, because corporations and Wall Street have controlled our politics for far too long. Today we basically have one big party with Democratic and Republican options inside. I'm just not going to play that game anymore because I don't think either party has the answers.
Juan and I have had many discussions on Afghanistan, with my respect for his expertise on foreign policy a guide for me. I've spent innumerable hours in Washington, D.C. (the area where I live) think tanks on foreign policy issues, which is a primary concern for me in my continuing political education.
I'd like to personally thank Juan for offering me a guest spot. I think challenging the corporate political structure is important. You are free to disagree. I appreciate very much that Juan has asked me in to make this point.
CK MacLeod 02/01/2012 at 2:48 pm
Actually, you're incorrect. Ron Paul's power began taking root during Bush's profligate presidency, which was also fueled by his foreign policy adventurism.
Thanks to all of Juan Cole's readers, especially the people who made a good faith effort at engaging. I have appreciated this conversation, as well as the emails I've gotten at my site on the subject I raised above in my column.
Americans needs to look beyond the two corporate and Wall Street funded parties. We the people only have power if we do not hand it off to politicians in exchange for something that makes our privacy weaker, our economy weaker, and our hand in the world weaker due to militarism at a time when the tools of soft power would go further.
The truth in Marsh’s piece is that the choice between Republican and Democrat candidates does not include one where America avoids driving over its self-made cliff, only a minor difference about when the event occurs.
I would use the words "Democratic candidates," JamesL, but beyond that editorial issue, the graph above is very interesting.
Dominic from London, UK 02/01/2012 at 3:15 pm
The Ralph Nader point is a canard.
The truth is that Al Gore would have won the presidency if he'd simply carried his own home state, TN.
It also in no way gets us out of the hamster wheel of corporate - Wall Street parties that continue to fund the defense industry, as well as ignore poverty and so many other issues, not the least of which is a foreign policy that seems to be predicated on anything but strategic interests.
Foreign policy is one of my primary beefs with Pres. Obama, as is indefinite detention, as I say in one of the top paragraphs in my column above.
Indefinite detention, anyone?
Predator drones?
That's why BobbyK got the point.
That's funny. Point to BobbyK.
Lucidamente 02/01/2012 at 8:28 am
I appreciate everyone's comments on this piece. As Juan knows all too well, as does anyone else interested in the facts, I was an enemy of puma in '08, which is proved in this piece for those interested. Not only did I bring in an anti-puma writer, but I literally blocked ALL puma from my site. To this day I get hate mail from puma types, which I share in my book.
I'll wear it as a badge of honor that I'm vilified by people wedded to what I call fan politics, people who put party above issues. That's not me anymore.
There's no evidence to date that Mitt Romney can beat Pres. Obama. Mr. Obama is still favored to win in November, which I've been writing for quite some time.
As a political analyst, as well as a recovering partisan, it's not my job to elect anyone. I write the truth as I see it and people will make their own choices.
I remain a liberal, but I have no intention of supporting anyone who is conservative on the issues that matter to me.
We are entering an era where the big two parties are being challenged by all sorts of candidates. That's a good thing, because corporations and Wall Street have controlled our politics for far too long. Today we basically have one big party with Democratic and Republican options inside. I'm just not going to play that game anymore because I don't think either party has the answers.
Juan and I have had many discussions on Afghanistan, with my respect for his expertise on foreign policy a guide for me. I've spent innumerable hours in Washington, D.C. (the area where I live) think tanks on foreign policy issues, which is a primary concern for me in my continuing political education.
I'd like to personally thank Juan for offering me a guest spot. I think challenging the corporate political structure is important. You are free to disagree. I appreciate very much that Juan has asked me in to make this point.