[Vision2020] Barack Obama

Ted Moffett starbliss at gmail.com
Sun Apr 27 16:41:12 PDT 2008


Paul Rumelhart wrote:



> It's going to be an interesting election.
>
> Whoever we get, can they really be as bad as who we have now?


This quote from John McCain on "Meet the Press" with Tim Russert from June
19, 2005, suggests McCain is not a parroting mouth piece for the oil and
coal industry, like W. Bush (note I wrote "suggests").  In fact, one of the
recent attack talking points from conservatives against McCain is his
apparent willingness to push substantive action reduce CO2 emissions:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8245636/

John McCain:

...but we've got to start reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases now.
And we can do that with cap and trade which is a free-market kind of
process.

The terrible thing about climate change is that we're not going to see the
effects of this for some years ahead of us although we're seeing some now in
the Arctic, in the Antarctic and other manifestations of it. But the worst
effects of it are down the road, and if we wait until those effects have
taken place, then it's going to have serious consequences. Tony Blair
said--look, suppose we act now and develop these technologies and reduce the
emissions of greenhouse gases and there's no such thing as climate change,
we have a cleaner world. But suppose we're right and climate change is
taking place and we don't act, it's very serious consequences for our
environment.
----------------------------------
Paul also wrote:


> Still, I won't be half surprised if some sort of orchestrated
> "catastrophe" or "emergency" happens right around election time and our
> President postpones the elections because of "national security".
>
> Paul
>
> P.S.  Just call me "conspiracy boy"...


I don't dismiss what you are implying as a "conspiracy," in the sense of not
being credible, though I doubt they would postpone the election.

"Orchestrated emergency," you write?  Recall the claims of yellow cake
uranium Iraq obtained from Niger, offered as solid evidence of a Iraq
nuclear weapons program (along with the phony claims of Iraq obtaining
centrifuge tubes for nuclear fuel processing, etc), by President Bush, in
the hyped propaganda effort to justify the Iraq invasion?  The dire warnings
of a "mushroom cloud over America," by Bush and Condi Rice, an image
specifically meant to inspire fear of a immanent nuclear attack from Iraq?

There was no solid evidence Iraq had a viable nuclear weapons program, much
less was even close to having an actual nuclear weapon they could deliver to
US soil.  And even if so, bombing runs, which were already routine over Iraq
before the invasion, could have destroyed nuclear weapons facilities, an
option less risky to American and Iraqi lives and treasure, than an actual
invasion and occupation.  And after Ambassador Wilson exposed the Niger
yellow cake fraud, his CIA operative wife Valerie Plame was outed by the
Bush administration.  Scooter Libby probably was the fall guy for this
scandal... Cheney should be in jail!

Article on Libby as "fall guy" quoting juror in Libby trial:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/06/libby.juror/
--------------------------
They would not need to postpone the election to keep the neo-con agenda in
power, which McCain to some extent represents, at least in his Iraq policy.
If a "catastrophe," i. e.  a terrorist style attack, occurred, that scared
the population enough, McCain could garner many votes as the strongest
national security candidate, the best president to defend the US against
it's "enemies."  And the current opposition to the war in Iraq might weaken,
especially if a link, whether credible or not, could be made between the
attack and extremists groups in Iraq, lessening the negative impacts in the
voters minds of McCain's "stay the course" policy on Iraq.

I wish it were not so, but I feel very uneasy about the Democrats nominating
either a black or a women as a presidential candidate, given the level of
sexism and racism in the US.  Writing purely as a cynical Machiavellian
strategist, I question, why can't the Democrats find a God fearing Bible
toting southern "progressive" white man who is a viable presidential
candidate, let's say with NRA credentials and subtle ethical "qualms" about
abortion and gays, while still taking a firm stand on human and civil
rights, who speaks tough on the war on terror and not letting Al Qaeda make
a home in Iraq, while still adopting a strategy for the US to lessen our
militaristic approach to solving the Iraq/Middle East mess, with a
progressive agenda on education, the economy, health care and climate
change?  Let them have their guns, their "right to life," and their
homophobia, if we can only change direction away from a militaristic
oil dominated foreign policy towards an alternative energy economy.

Has my idealism faded?  No, but I am more inclined to adopt a realistic
political strategy to achieve certain goals, even if it means making a deal
with the devil.  What did progressive idealism lead to in the USA in the
last forty years?  Eight years of the Bush administration... This is a
serious failure, that should inspire a total rethinking of strategy.

Anyone who thinks they are making some kind of noble idealistic statement by
voting for a third party candidate, rather than Clinton, if she is the
Democratic nominee, should carefully consider the 2000 election.  The
idealists who voted for Nader in Florida, without a doubt kept Gore from the
White House, though in Idaho I voted for Nader, knowing full well Idaho was
solidly Bush territory for Idaho's electoral votes.  The coming election
will probably go for McCain in Idaho, so again a vote for Nader here will
not hurt Obama or Clinton.  Gore, with all his faults, would not have fallen
for the neo-cons Middle East domination ideology, and the invasion of Iraq.
I could not believe the Nader followers in 2000 who kept insisting there was
no substantive difference between Gore and Bush!

All it may take is a percentage or two of voters who are sexist or racist,
and/or voting for McCain due to his military image, if there is a
manufactured or real "emergency" impacting national security, to hand McCain
the While House.  We know Obama and Clinton will be torn to shreds in the
media by the Republican political machine.  Get ready for the "swift
boating" of either Obama or Clinton.

But is it still possible for an Obama/Clinton ticket?  I'm not sure if this
would help or hurt the Democrats chances.

Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080427/b026f458/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Vision2020 mailing list