Naw, there’s nothing wrong - that interview was very revealing …
He refused to admit to a “litmus test” for Clinton - he doesn’t have one …
He weaseled a lot …
Naw, there’s nothing wrong - that interview was very revealing …
Warren is a Dem - depends on the machine - she will go just so far, til she gets AF1-ed …
Ah, so you won’t vote for a decent candidate?
Naw, there’s better - we don’t have to vote for any evil …
I’m backing someone better …
Naw, he isn’t the best one running - actually he isn’t even running yet!
“…you and a few others never cease to tear down anyone who attempts to
actually take it on themselves to speak to real issues or provide an
alternative to the candidates chosen by big money.”
Wow, that is quite an indictment! Now I challenge you to come up with examples to make your point valid. And since you are naming names just who else are you indicting?
Your rhetorical questions are akin to the person who points a finger at someone critiquing Big Energy and asking “well do you ride a bicycle or drive a car?” “Do you grow and harvest your own food, or do you buy it from the supermarket?” “Are you going to quit your job and join Greenpeace or are you just going to armchair critique Big Energy?” “Are you going to stir your coffee with that wooden stick, or are you going to sell all of your possessions to donate to Earth First and join them spiking trees in the old growth forest?”
In your article “Military Madness is Killing Our Country” you write a fine comprehensive critique of the machinations of power of the MIC, its cultural influence, and the bloody result. You aptly quote Henry Giroux, one of my favorite writers that NEVER compromises on his principled stance against Empire’s enabling MIC.
But here you are dragging me through the muck because I dared to call out Bernie Sanders for not being outspoken against that very militarization. Surely you are aware of Bernie Sander’s support for the F-35, right?
Would OWS be satisfied with Bernie Sander’s support for the F-35? Did that truth inspire OWS?
And Bernie Sander’s support for not seeking any criminal investigation of the Bush Administration’s crimes against humanity is what? Aligned with your stated principles about war and peace in your essay?
Do I have to start my own movement to qualify for pointing these things out? At least I’m consistent with my principled opposition to people who DO support the MIC with their own ACTIONS, like Bernie Sanders.
Do I think that he is correct on many issues? Yes. That is part of the frustration. I would like to put my support behind a socialist Bernie Sanders that at the end of the day is a principled opponent of Empire, corporate power, and war making by the MIC. But that Bernie Sanders does not exist.
Would he be better than Hillary Clinton? Well that seems to be an open question since he is unwilling to take her on directly even as a non-candidate. When I clicked on the link to this article, I was hoping to see such a direct statement that neither Hillary or the GOP “won’t take on corporate power”. What did he actually say? He has his doubts. Thus my frustration. How can he possibly have doubts?
I’m not going to back someone like Bernie Sanders that refuses to go after those guilty of crimes against humanity, who champions a military aircraft that will cost over a trillion dollars and is designed to kill scores of human beings, and who in the end capitulates to corporate power.
He worked hard to get Sandia to build a laboratory in Vermont focusing on technological advances in solar energy, etc. Problem is Sandia’s other operations support the production and maintenance of nuclear warheads and things like that. Sandia’s parent company is Lockheed Martin the builder of the F-35 killer aircraft.
I don’t suppose that Bernie Sanders has engaged his power as a Senator strumming the strings of Lockheed Martin and Sandia. Do you suppose he has?
What was the point of your essay again? To amplify the principles of peace and to call out the dangerous militarization of our culture? Seems to me that is what you were doing in your well written essay.
Isn’t that exactly what I’m doing here? Opposing according to that principle Bernie Sander’s reluctance to take on the MIC directly? Or is it just a matter of “waste” as he puts it?
The following is Vermont’s Congressional Delegation’s statement regarding the F-35 coming to Vermont. The following is a joint statement that of course includes Bernie Sanders as a co-author.
“The Air Force decision to base its newest generation of planes in
Burlington is a tribute to the Vermont Air National Guard, which is the
finest in the nation. It reflects the Guard’s dedication to its mission
and long record of outstanding performance. The Air Force has made
clear that this aircraft, which will anchor our national air defenses,
is the Air Force’s future. Now the men and women of Vermont’s Air
National Guard have been chosen for a vital role in that future. The
decision ensures the Vermont Air Guard’s continuing mission and protects
hundreds of jobs and educational opportunities for Vermonters while
securing its significant contribution to the local economy."
Now lets contrast that with your quote of Henry Giroux from your excellent essay at Veermag.com…
The apostles of militarism offer jobs to the public that engage in
the production of organized violence; they preach war as a cleansing
solution, while they sanitize language of any meaning, erasing the
suffering, misery, and horror inflicted by their drone missiles, jets,
Apache helicopters, and bombs.
Being principled consistently is such a pain sometimes, isn’t it?
Who? I can think of better people but they aren’t even threatening to run.
I hear your criticism of Sanders but who else is running that you would get behind? Hopefully better options will emerge BUT I doubt they will get the coverage in the corporate press that Sanders is getting to say what must be said.
I never claimed to be an ideal individual but I do what I can with what little I have. I struggle to move culture and consciousness in a progressive, environmental and class conscious direction by publishing a progressive literary journal called the Blue Collar Review ( for 18 years) and I write regular articles for a local, otherwise non-political culture mag called “Veer Magazine” in my community. I also support and participate in grassroots activism when I can. More importantly, I try to support anything that moves us forward or that makes people think along progressive lines rather than going after anyone that tries with a chainsaw of rabid criticism. I’m willing to support any candidate, or several, that stand against the corporate oilgarcy or that seek to prioritize citizen interests over corporate ones. Realism trumps idealism in the real world.
I’d consider voting for her – again but I still want Sanders to at least be in the debates saying what needs to be said. Realistically, no candidate that isn’t vetted by the CIA and Wall Street can be elected even in everyone voted for them. The important thing is to use the opportunity to present real alternatives and to cut through the BS with some truth in hopes of using it to spark a real movement.
You’ve changed your tune. Now you “hear” my criticisms of Sanders. This is after you told me to “do us a favor and shut up”.
Let’s review your “chainsaw of rabid” criticisms of me based upon a single post where I dared criticize the politician Bernie Sanders.
The ultra-left naysayers do us all more harm than the Republicans pushing nothing but scathing critiques and crippling cynicism. Either organize a movement, run yourself, back someone better, or do us a favor and shut up.
…you and a few others never cease to tear down anyone who attempts to
actually take it on themselves to speak to real issues or provide an
alternative to the candidates chosen by big money.
I try to support anything that moves us forward or that makes people
think along progressive lines rather than going after anyone that tries
with a chainsaw of rabid criticism.
This kind of attack is ugly and has no place on this forum. You portray yourself as essentially taking the high road while at the same time leveling the most base judgments against my character and reputation on this forum.
Your inference that I am mentally unhinged by the use of the word “rabid” is especially appalling.
I have thousands of posts in the Disqus system using the same moniker – previously used at CD – that you are more than welcome to peruse. In those posts I have consistently taken principled positions for peace, justice, and an equitable society. I have engaged in what I consider the good fight in pointing out how corporations now rule this country and have a detailed knowledge of how it has come to pass that the Democratic Party (as in the current power center of the party) has intentionally abandoned their traditional base and steadfastly moved to the right servicing their new core constituency – powerful wealthy individuals and corporations. The same power paradigm that Bernie Sanders ultimately aligns himself with despite his populist rhetoric.
The pace of this move to the right in this country has been terrifying. I’m a child of the 60s with a vivid memory of a decision I made to never be duped by those with power. That decision happened as a result of a chain of events that started with me taking a phone call from my mom’s best friend who was weeping and upon handing the phone to my mom she, a moment later, was also weeping. I found out that her friend’s son, who used to come over to our house had been killed in Vietnam. I liked him and felt overwhelmed myself. Not long after that, I witnessed on the special reports one afternoon the images coming from Kent State.
Bernie Sanders is a supporter of that same MIC that has caused so much misery. But according to you, my drawing a line in the sand on that principle amounts to being an “ultra-left naysayer”.
Okay then, I’m an ultra-left naysayer.
Would I be better regarded by you if I simply overlooked his tacit and active support of the MIC, and only credited him with his populist rhetoric?
Perhaps in this instance you would rather me stay silent on this issue in regard to Bernie Sanders in some kind of political calculation where “realism trumps idealism”.
Isn’t that ultimately the same kind of “realism” at the heart of Kissinger’s foreign policy objectives based upon his subjective framework of Realpolitik? Lots of blood has been spilled on this Earth by those engaging in such a philosophy that “realism trumps idealism”.
If me being disgusted by such “centrism”, or “neoliberalism” makes me “rabid”, then so be it.
I used to be a big fan of Bernie Sanders, until I realized just how deep he is steeped in the dark power game of Washington D.C. according to this new configuration of corporate governance. I liked how he forced an audit of the FED, but I was extremely dismayed at his insistence in not calling for an investigation into the crimes of the Bush Administration.
These were crimes against humanity where he chose a certain Realpolitik where “realism trumps idealism”
That kind of “realism” has left untouched the architects of illegal war and torture of human beings. That is a truth that I would hope would inspire a movement.
I am a poor person, who works full time and who struggles with health and mental health issues. I do my best to convey the importance of caring about peace, justice and equitable society issues to people I meet, and to people I work with, and friends. As you surely know this at times seems like a lonely endeavor as so often such convictions are met with derision, apathy, indifference, et al.
I have participated in public posting of my own art in the cause of peace, justice, and an equitable society. I have been to protests of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant, San Onofre Nuclear Plant, protested the invasion and slaughter in Panama, the first Gulf War, the brutal sanctions, the Invasion of Afghanistan, the second Invasion of Iraq, have herded friends and acquaintances to come to OWS meetings, volunteered graphic design services, phone banked for Peace and Freedom Party, written hundreds of letters to Senators, Representatives, reporters in MSM, letters to the editor, called into radio programs, attended various lectures by people like Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, Daniel Sheehen of the Christic Institute, yadda yadda yadda.
Oh for the want of a microphone like Bernie Sanders in the presence of Mike Wallace.
He has doubts, doubts about whether Hillary Clinton will take on corporate governance. If you are looking for someone to follow according to your principle of “realism trumps idealism” then by all means back Bernie Sanders.
I will choose idealism over bloody “realism" and vote my conscience by voting for Jill Stein or any other candidate that when given the chance to speak truth to power won’t repeat MIC supportive mantras. Mantras that actually directly service that person’s political ambitions and personal interests.
Bernie Sanders is right when he directs his focus against Wall Street, and for Single Payer Universal Health Care, and for a living wage, but he ultimately serves the very power paradigm that works against those same stated interests.
How can he possibly justify supporting a weapons system estimated to run well over 1,000,000,000,000 USD and at the same time give lip service to “waste”? How can he support such an expenditure instead of directly arguing that spending that amount of money for a new weapons system works against the social expenditures he supposedly really cares about.
I’ll say it again. He won’t run. He doesn’t intend to run. If he really wanted to lead a movement of the people against corporate greed then he wouldn’t cower to the standard set by the new corporate rulers of having to have a “credible” campaign with loads of money. He would simply start post haste by taking on corporate power directly when he has a microphone at his disposal with millions watching. He would divest himself of his political interest in the MIC if he really wanted a movement of the people over the power of corporations, given that the most powerful corporations of all getting in the way of the interests of the people here and abroad make up the MIC.
Congratulations on your efforts to work for more just world.
I’ve been doing the same.
Well if no candidate that isn’t vetted by the CIA & WS could ever be elected, what’s the point? Present “real alternatives” ? And then what? A “real movement” to do what, precisely, with nothing but CIA approved candidates in office?
Sorry, i think if “everyone” voted for somebody (s)he would win …