Unity 08 / Bloomberg

NOT!

But not necessarily a NEW third party or Unity '08. Even though it depends on how the party actually gets things done, it could be just another "Third Way" which is just the middle of what we got and will get more of the same. The winner-take-all construction of the whole process mitigates against a third party, except as a broker or a spoiler. Forces of good, rather than unity, should pick a side and influence it, but even that has pragmatic problems in that the good is divided. On the other hand: upon further "hard work" they may be able to be just that broker. So rather than the spread of Second Lives, maybe a Fourth Way, is upon us, but it will depend upon the actions/reactions of candidates as well.]

[The above is an edited version from my earlier post and I will add that the action/reactions of the candidates is a reference to not just the major party candidates, but those that choose to wander.

Of course Bloomberg was the topic of the last post. Here are a few random notes. Unity 08 has an opinion on the New York Mayor's run from the Republican party.

Local: Progressive blogging at Horsesass.org gives a perspective on Washington State issues.

National: Huffingtonpost.com must also be noted. And some media studies matter at Mediamatters.org

Hit and Run or Quick Comment on the news.
Tag! You're it.

Democrats choose not to filibuster

[On the filibuster, bipartisanship and third party involvement.]

(02-02-01) {Responding to "Abolish the Filibuster!" by Timothy Noah in Slate, Chatterbox.}
The filibuster does seem like a useless tool. It, like the Electoral College, is rarely used for the good they were intended. However, the vote for Ashcroft does help support it as a tool to define bipartisan, if anything can. The interesting thing is that both sides claim bipartisanship. The Republicans with the idea that it was a bipartisan vote since 8 Democrats were on the side of the nominee. The Democrats with the idea that they split votes and did not vote in a block. I would like a little more on why the Republicans can make this claim though.
It really seems that the Dems have three points on their side. One, the Democrats that voted for Ashcroft, were the ones that made that decision. Two, the Republicans were unified in their support. And three, the Democrats had enough to block a cloture if they had stuck together, but chose not to waste the country's time and offered another olive branch to a white flag.
I do feel that enough white flags(whoops)olive branches were offered with the earlier Senate confirmations, and if this was not important enough to filibuster, what would be?
However there are also three important political motives for the olive branches, and one is to define the terms that Bush uses. If they are surrounded by olive branches, the Republicans will be caught up in their own words, before they can get out.
The second political motive is that it only takes one to start a filibuster, but reality is, that not enough would choose to continue it because they are not being as partisan as the other side and its nominee. Third, they will have established this record and try to use it in the next election.
More important though, is that abolishing the filibuster will do too much to drive us to majority rule. That is a bigger point you saved for last. Decisions on the process, let alone legislation, should not be made based on the convenience of those with power. But wait till a third party tries to use it. Whoops. Maybe it would be worth having a third party, if it could contribute to the proper use of a dictionary without the shifting sands of political power.

GOP @)!@ ...(2012)

2012 that is.
Mitch Daniels, was my earliest hunch, Huntsman was a close second. Ron Paul was an early hope, but Gary Johnson beat him to the announcement. Now when I say hope, this is from the perspective that there be a good candidate for Republicans and the 2012 race, not that they should have any shot at being good for the country. This does not take into considerations any impact of a third party or independent candidate, or any political calculus. I don't find any references in a search of my blog but could have embedded some comment or link that may mention them. I associate Daniels with a Chris Matthews* comment, and Huntsman with some China controversy, while Paul and Johnson are libertarian. Which may be why I have been focused on economics and Ayn Rand. I would like to have a good de bait on neo-classical economics. It is hard to imagine Mitt Romney making it but then the longer the so-called libertarian or tea party candidate split the vote he or these guys could run the fish ladder, and it is hard to imagine a third party candidate that would not be just another spoiler. I don't want to do the political calculus to rock that boat.

* one reason I might scratch Daniels, but then again

5-17-11 Related links: Needless to say** Label
(Republicans 2012)
One No Trump
Two No Huckabee***

**Calm Pend E Um has a reference to an anomoly
*** Raising Cain

What politics is about.

Progress for People

Hands Off Connecticut
By Scott Galindez
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

My Tangent or Triangulation:

Much of what I may leave unsaid may be because if tables were turned I would not say them, but I do not think this is the case. While outside influence on a state's political race interferes with the local voter's intentions, it also flies back out of the state to others who feel that they understand what the party does not.

Until there is a viable third party and a change in primary and general election processes that can eliminate the hazzard that a third party will win it for the wrong side, outside help should focus on the general elections rather than in primaries. And for the dissappointed, there is value in voting for the lesser of two evils, provided that your vote does not put in office the greater.

For the voter in the primary, vote your conscience, it is not throwing a vote away or voting for the other guy. But come the general, things are black and white and you must vote for a viable winner or be satisfied that you will possibly be putting in a loser.

[Update: two evils (cartoon and labels added)]

PRESIDENTIAL PROFILES

TO THE RIGHT?
MY LIST OF LINKS HAVE BEEN MODIFIED.

PRESIDENTIAL PROFILES - LINK
HAS BEEN ADDED
AND
LOCAL POLITICS

AND

LOCAL MEDIA
ARE NEW TITLES.

[* 3:12 PM UPDATE: What I believe: Obama
and the Republicans need a Link like Presidential Profiles: HERE IS MSNBC'S THE CONTENDERS
But not necessarily a NEW third party or Unity '08. Even though it depends on how the parties actually get things done, it could be just another "Third Way" which is just the middle of what we got and will get more of the same. The winner take all construction of the whole process mitigates against a third party, except as a broker or a spoiler. Forces of good, rather than unity, should pick a side and influence it, but even that has pragmatic problems in that the good is divided. On the other hand: upon further "hard work" they may be able to be just that broker. So rather than the spread of Second Lives, maybe a Fourth Way, is upon us, but it will depend upon the actions/reactions of candidates as well.]

"intolerable truths"

are what Pat Buchanan called Ron Paul's "extraordinary statement" which is what Rudy Giuliani called them.

I will also note that Ed Schultz claims the possibility of more than a third party. Earlier I had noted the contrast between Ron Paul and Lyndon LaRouche in their coming to a party with a different approach, but Ed finds the immigration bill as a potential for break outs. Meanwhile I forgot to mention the "break ins" of Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich. Not to mention Mr. Inconvenient Truth himself.

But I would suggest that some of the candidates talk about merging their tickets. Now that would present it's own difficulties but no more than Democrats and Republicans splitting off from their "party" for a Unity08.

Maybe the debates could be shuffled to facilitate some mixing up. Bloomberg/Sanders Hagel/Liebermann
Now I know I'm mixed up, but just in the break down. It was mainly a combination of some independents thrown in with some Unity08 potentials.

FOR ME TO READ LATER MAYBE:
The Year of the Third Force by Howard Fineman
A Third Way? by Elenor Clift

MY EARLIER TAKES
ONE (see Fourth Way)
and TWO "the voodoo that y$$ do"

Truth Tellers

Thom Hartmann notes that the truth teller of the Democrats is Kucinich and for the Republicans it is Ron Paul, who notes the history of the Republican party as against wars. And thanks to a quick google, the first few paragraphs hits it out of the park **. "Way out", as it is put there. Or a slam dunk if you will.

That was still the situation when Clinton was president and even when the current Bush was campaigning against being nation builders and policeman to the world. Another point in this regard is that old Bush in a China Shop metaphor where:
when we broke it, we don't own it, but we might pay for it.

Final note: On Unity08 plans for a bipartisan ticket, I think it is crazy or at minimum won't work. Now, not that it won't succeed. But not necessarily for the country. It really is hard to take a negative attitude with something that seems so middle of the road, but then if we put the people in the middle of the road, they may just get run down. OK! So metaphors may not work, but the may make a point, and getting somewhere that has a point is the "hard work". There! Does that make any progress on the point. Well it may just be going round and round, but that may be another result, not that I am trying to get the geometry covered. But now that I have run that into the ground, I will take a tangent and note that there may be room for dialogue on the third party or third or fourth way. Dialogue and debate is happening within each party. If there are any outliers. Those hanging back; LaRouche (may get the point); Nader (I am not so sure); Bloomberg or Hagel; or not lastly Wesley Clark. But above we have noted, and I believe I recall now that my comparison (if not noted earlier) was between Ron Paul and LaRouche rather than Kucinich, that there are certain mavericks but at least they are participating now. I would harken back to my point about Red and Blue America and the threat to the green. It must be noted that "at the risk of being obvious" must have been too deep and the PI editors* changed my word "green" to "color" which put a completely different tint on my letter. My point is that Unity08 may be more about the green and may not get us out of seeing red.

*(In the last line of "the threat to the green" link, which may have been a threat to someone's green, if not not black and white enough to fit their grey matter.)

**11:35 AM amended [six paragraphs to be precise, I had not read much beyond "To many people, however..." and that is where we must remember the words of Rudy Guliani, on or shortly after September 11th, something like: Aren't you glad George Bush is president? Case closed. These guys cannot fight or debate without misconstruing the point or the enemy, period. Black and white enough?]

Unity '08

UPDATE:
Third party entering presidential raceNovember 6th, 2007
Build a new political platform - from the people on up September 30, 2007.
Uniting for 2008 November 12, 2007.

Ahead of the Curve?
Not Exactly.

Partisan Disclosure:
Unity '08 Poll Participant
Democratic Party Activist

Op-Ed Background:
the "uniter"
Back and Forth
"between the lines"
See Far Right Column "Help Navigate"

Recent Efforts.

FORCED STAND UP!
Strategy of MoveOn

[12-08-05]Eighty per cent of Iraqi's want us out, 45 % believe that harming troops is warranted. If the troops are not there to be targets, they (insurgents or what ever you call them) will only have Iraqis or others to kill, which will certainly undermine the strategy that we are only reacting to and only increase the responsibility of Iraqis to stand up and make their own choices.


NO DISCOURSE MEANS WRONG COURSE!
TELL JOE

[12-08-05] I can only imagine that you are actually calling for us to speak out and so you will see the light of true patriots and then have the courage to do your job. It is your right to support what you see fit, but to call for following blindly in any time is a great disservice to the country and it's people especially to those who are supposed to be fighting overseas for democracy.

[Headings were not included with in the above comments sent with the petitions.]


TODAY'S RHETORICAL QUESTION: Will Lieberman play the role of a third party spoiler or be a party splitter?

Of course that would be the Republicans that should be spoiled or split. Not that I am suggesting this, for we would still have to worry about being spoiled or split. But my point of discourse above would mean that it is preferrable to "staying the course"/the wrong course.

Is there anything worse than a rhetorical question?
Answering it?

[Please note: hopefully compared to my usual comments this is seen as derived from some current wild speculation and taken a little further, not in hopes that it will come to pass.]

[NOTE: TWO PIECES IN THIS POST]

Revised Sent to Eastside Journal Dec. 7th.
IDEOLOGY AND PROCESS

A letter to the editor by Wilbur Mann, Dec. 3rd, "Electoral System Works" typically misinterpreted Donald Kaul's (EJ Nov. 24th) piece, "Anti-war rallies don't have the power to change politicians' hearts". Kaul also focused on the difficulties caused by being too tied to ideology, resulting in those too extreme or dissatisfied leaving the confines of a party, and how this impacts our governmental process. Third party spoilers end up muting voices rather than give them representation.

While Kaul lamented the failures of both the voices and the system in its last two cycles, the letter actually supported the piece by Kaul. It suggested "The electors themselves can be eliminated: they don't even appear on the ballot anymore, and there is nothing to stop them from changing their votes once elected. But let's keep the process." Contradictions aside, this seems to support a system without a voice.

Oddly I concur that we keep the process, but giving the electors a voice is one of the points in its favor. Mann would seem to concur with the Supreme Court, where it similarly had so many contradictions it could not set precedence, yet managed to eliminate some voices (Florida’s voters, legislature, judiciary, and electors).

The frequent disdain for moderate "politicians" who might be using their own judgment or will compromise for the sake of progress over ideology, leaves us all between a rock and a hard place or rather between partisanship and politics (neither of which need vilification) squashing the voices of reason.


Sent to Dori Monson and Dave Ross on KIRO 710 radio.
[December 6th, 2002]

Dear Dori: (Copy to Dave)
To be honest, I must say that I am coming to deeply despise your inflammatory choice of words. In particular your reference to the "no Iraq war" crowd as the "hate America crowd" with "their heads in the sand". First I feel that if one hates America one could simply leave as they used to say and not take the risks of speaking out, but in reality it is those that would shut them up that have other options than to remain in America. Since there is the element of choice here don’t accuse me of actually suggesting this. I simply mean that if one hated America they have the choice of leaving, but those who love their country still have the choice of both speaking out as well as breaking laws and going to jail as a point of principle. What a great country!

As far as having heads in the sand, no matter how many terrible points that you feel are being ignored, they do not make up for others like you having their head in the sand in other directions. Some tout responsibility, but want to forget the past. Indeed I agree with a kernel of what you say, where any regime that chooses to ignore international law should be changed. Did you know that the Bush administration has made that choice a policy? Well I won’t provide the details since if your head is not in the sand you should know them, nor do I want to play a lawyer since they get no more respect than laws or legislators.

It’s hard to rap this up with something more inflammatory when I’ve already made my points. However, since you said conditionally that relief from such evil was not necessarily the goal of the administration. But would just be somewhat of an "accidental" outcome of war with Iraq. I must say that it may be a long time before your head will be safe in the sand again. Bush said recently, "You cannot wage war defensively." I say, you cannot wage peace offensively. Nor, as a guest on Dave Ross’ show before yours said, by demonizing others. That would sure leave some talk shows cold. In fact the guest would gladly go to jail to get the "principles" of the administration out of the sand and into a court of law.

Black Lives Matter

Hillary
Bernie

Trump
no trump ?*

file this **

*the Summer of Trump
** Amazon Culture

8-18-15:  GPST
Donald Trump geometers like a third grader. (^)

Speaking of Self-tense.  OW: Geo-Political Self Tents?
Sub-reference:  Putting perspective in one's own frame. 

Not to take my own tangent, but Hillary and Bernie are under pressure from many angles to craft their message so that it matters to the perspective of their critics.  Nothing should take away from the words in this heading.  Trump is another case of geometry at work***, formerly known as triangulation of the third way. 

Back to what matters!?  Do they feel the Bern?  The operable "they" being the parties and campaigns, it is good exercise, or in some cases exorcise.

*** culture at work? (see: file this / bridging the law of intended consequences?) **
[Tea Party / Trump Party? 50 state scream? Why is there no Colbert of the Right?]

[As a not so side note: I cannot believe it has been a year since Ferguson. (~)
BTW:  having been on somewhat of a successful sabbatical(correction: hi8us), there is a gap in my coverage as well as my social net.]

(^) not to be technical, but not sure of the grade
(BLM: budgets literally me~de~8!)

Neo-Perspectivism

It is hard to say which niche this arises from.**
Neo-Nuanced is one trigger.***
Even if retro actively.
No silver bullet.
(Or Lone Ranger)
(I, II, III, IV, Not nor note.)
(Far From It)

Less embedded:
It is not just to Pop Culture but social engineering.
If that is an aphorism, you have one hint.(ouch)
But Freud and Hitler were both Austrian,
but the latter-day Austrians are economic transcendentalists.*
(Emerson, Niche& Rand?)
Some credit may be due to "Plato Not Prozac."

[Just in.]

***

Notes to Asterisk Readers:
It may help the flow if one reads the asterisks in order and after a full read of this piece, but scrolling over links as one goes will be useful.
* no Emerson
** last link inserted: Maybe way too much of a D'Ribble or G'Ribble?
[Apologies for Neo-Euphemism.]

[Breaking News:  Herman Cain will give an "unconventional Endorsement just prior to the South Carolina Primary. (Ctrl F "best" under vent) I hope it is not another one of his tours or projects, but if it is not a third party run or candidate it might be someone from out of the blue if not a write-in.  Huntsman or Bachmann also come to mind.]

***  The irony of taxes, GDP and debt. Is it in the charts?

> Previous Post <

Image of Original In Tent

Re: Sources

C W
Homer, Plato**, Hell'nistic, Hamiltonian/Jeffersonian *: Evolutionary Thinking***.

* less than random link/Google of the day?
not fully read yet,
never completely endorsed, unlike Labelists [Well...not exactly.]

** lede not

[The under lying(pun) under standing(literal) as well as substance, regards semantics. Now that is a pretty firm line for a fluid foundation.
See W(hint pun/ribble)
The history of the constitution falls into this spectrum. The Federalist Papers were an argument, for what does not matter, it won and lost, as the amendments suggest. The constitution was signed but not without compromise. And we were never on the same page again. This is my perspective without the usual qualifiers.]
*** How prophetic?

[Unoriginal In tent: related links without hints]
[On the other hand... looking for spectrum.]

[Given the field of the Republican Presidential race, no apologies are in order. Excuses maybe, blame yourself. BTW: not disappointed by Herman Cain, to drop out but carry the mess age to the table. But in honor of the Federalists, the non-party party, here is a third field or party or option. Caution!]

[NPR: Re-education]
[Update: Herman

Philosophical Spin

And the Prospects* for Metaphor?
I am a bit ahead of the curve here, but regarding the discovery of a new planet that does not spin, and therefor has a hot side and a cold side, i.e. a black and white world. But I wish to note the third party implications and the double Goldilocks effect. It is not only where the planet is located but where on the planet life could originate, without the effects of change[**] that is global.
*Originally intended link not available yet.
[**]after all could life really happen in a no spin zone?

Father, Son,

'N whole E politics[!]
The irony of the third party?

AoJ?

[8th Imprimatur(~) of Justice?]
~3 thx to E.J.Dionne

(*~): Rand Paul ~ "Unoccupied Space"


[MF - misc fractals /~/  5th D - Bohemian Gravy-toss.]
12-19-14
[BTW: Last evening my dad had a layover aka cell phone lot /caught up on some Colbert and wings:  The most salient point?  What the heck were the creators of The Interview thinking? ]
Cause Mall Oh Ge?
Jeb
What the \ frac? CIA Sony/ E. J. not found?

Same old, same old?

me...
Meaning my old temptation to comment primarily before fully reading a source.
Who are the Taliban?

Although I have actually started to read, I must note in digesting it, my thoughts.
Preemptively? My thoughts were that the Taliban are the new al Queda. Well...
at this point they are at least "the insurgents" but my new take is that they are the new coalition of the willing.

Willing to do anything to get foreigners out. Just showing that Bush is a uniter not a divider. The Taliban have gone from being willing to give up bin Laden to an international court or third party to being the loyal opposition or radical unifiers where the unifying force is our forces. I have long harbored if not sunk certain phrases that would imply that Bush would be true to some sort of his words.

SO THERE... now I will get back to about the fifth paragraph, reading the link above, subtitled: The Afghan War Deciphered. I hope it is the legacy flip-flopped.

[12-5-08: Having finished the full article, there is only hope that some change in course will make the legacy more than just more of the same. But more than just change in course are the actual participants in the navigation.]

Why OWS is bigger than Left vs. Right.

Stuck in the game frame?
Bright Bart and Big Government?

Why OWS is bigger...

Tactically, what we'll see here will be a) people firmly on the traditional Democratic side claiming to speak for OWS, and b) people on the right-Republican side attempting to portray OWS as a puppet of well-known liberals and other Democratic interests.

Whine and G's?

On the Democratic side, we've already seen a lot of this behavior, particularly in the last week or so. Glenn Greenwald wrote about this a lot last week, talking about how Obama has already made it clear that he is "on the same side as the Wall Street protesters" and that the Democratic Party, through the DCCC (its House fundraising arm), has jumped into the fray by circulating a petition seeking 100,000 party supporters to affirm that "I stand with the Occupy Wall Street protests". (I wonder how firmly the DCCC was standing with OWS sentiment back when it was pushing for the bailouts and the repeal of Glass-Steagall Act).

Really?

What nobody is comfortable with is a movement in which virtually the entire spectrum of middle class and poor Americans is on the same page, railing against incestuous political and financial corruption on Wall Street and in Washington. The reality is that Occupy Wall Street and the millions of middle Americans who make up the Tea Party are natural allies and should be on the same page about most of the key issues, and that's a story our media won't want to or know how to handle.

Not your grandfather's "traditional".

This is an issue for the traditional "left" because it's a classic instance of overweening corporate power - but it's an issue for the traditional "right" because these same institutions are also the biggest welfare bums of all time, de facto wards of the state who sucked trillions of dollars of public treasure from the pockets of patriotic taxpayers from coast to coast

Really?

Both traditional constituencies want these companies off the public teat and back swimming on their own in the cruel seas of the free market, where they will inevitably be drowned in their corruption and greed, if they don't reform immediately. This is a major implicit complaint of the OWS protests and it should absolutely strike a nerve with Tea Partiers, many of whom were talking about some of the same things when they burst onto the scene a few years ago.

I have read Matt Taibbi's piece three times now over the course of parsing this, and I will let you read your own conclusions.

[Then I signed the petition at DCCC (see bold) "I stand..." with the following amendments.(see 3 links)]

[Each of the above blockquotes are directly from Matt Taibbi's piece, with the bold segues my comments. But the final Really?, "Both traditional constituencies want these companies off the public teat and back swimming on their own in the cruel seas of the free market, where they will inevitably be drowned in their corruption and greed, if they don't reform immediately." sounds a bit naive if not libertarian. Companies and Wall Street will not reform themselves any more than they will let themselves fail or let the market do its magic. But it is a matter of who's on board or overboard as well as some sort of tents.]
[Speaking of ironies, or Bright Bart and Big Government, just whose side is who on?]
[Meanwhile I have four posts to further parse. Starting with the big bite. @ 7 minutes 15 seconds in: Over two thirds of New Yorkers support Occupy Wall Street.]

[Oh what a web. No E.B. White:
SCroll up! Tol Keen? Rubric, Elements, what "October", Mis-attribute? Justice and/or sand witchbracket.]
[Alternative Reich? Not to pun on the furor, but is there an alternative?]
[A Democratic* strategist touched on something(on Martin Bashir) that has been embedded in my thoughts, and even more embedded in my writings. The Republican candidate will not come from the activist wing. And indeed the current leader often trails "anybody else". Well, they are not really polling that candidate, but the leaders are still struggling for less than a third of the Republican's votes(current Gallup Romney 20%). My point is that there just might be a compromise or coalition candidate. On the other hand... who am I to say democracy will prevail over the Republic?]
* 10-19-11 I have yet to find the proper link but place some others under Democratic Strategist and Martin Bashir.

In Humor...

Timing is Everything. [*]
Senate Report: Bush Used Iraq Intel He Knew Was False
Huffington Post [**]
and More Change We Can Believe In (Not)
6 Other Things that Aren't "Change We Can Believe In"
Timing We Can Believe In?
America's 40 Years War at an End
Last Laugh?
No More Drama

Not Really
McCain Supports Bush's Warrantless Wiretaps
All (nfry) Stay the Course

[Looking Back: yet having to MoveOn - Ouch!
But really, can McCain have his cake
and will Republicans eat it too? Seriously?
I don't know if we can, but there is more parsing to do,
and let's work on it.]

[*] - This link is serious.
It is the Y that is funny? - Why "Y"?
It is the political charges, not the satire,
or saY tire and/of political spin.[**]

And while I plan to take a rest, the rest will be revisited later,
but for now two things,
A. I may have not said it but I do feel for those who feel so strongly about their candidate and their cause,
B. In many of my previous writings, the seeming satire may not reflect that. But in particular the potential for third party or other candidates being spoilers and brokers, was an attempt to ward off, and prepare for a much later or parsed political process, and while sometimes seemingly satire, it is mostly just trying to run with other's rhetoric and feelings rather than just to rock the boat or the vote.

[**] Each of these spins(mine) have a Huffington Post link on them, followed by their title in bold.

I wouldn't go that far.

On the verge of declaring that the CNBC motto should be Lean BackWords, (I did use the term Fauxword), it is interesting how the words(** )play out.
[AM OC "DNC Uses Dressage Horse to Hit Romney on Tax Returns." Hiding behind the skirt of the issues.  Jeb Bush continues the Lyin' Eyesin'.]
But how far should one go? Not* that I was starting from there.**

*the Jansing&Co links aren't there yet
** Oops maybe I was.
(Note anachronism of asterisks-adjusted.)

[Here is where it started and how far will it go? See AM above.]
[This post needs some serious footnoting***. Re: Labels.]

*** V-8?  [under RNP (viii) links are being sourced re: labels and oops, I have a heckuva lot under construction.]

[Post Roman numerals is The Cycle & "It Takes a Village", and understanding(Bane) more than exceptionalism. Mean while... speaking of Hoover. (para-phrasing meta-ramble)The former president on Fame & Power, a puppet in the headlights or swamp gas? Blast from the past, MED or Axis of Awesome, Reign on Parade of Rove 'n Nordquist.  Hal-C-on days?]

[Re:NorMan GoldMan Show (my)comment below, oops, maybe it is hyper-bully?  Speaking of shows, a technical glitch makes his first hour a veil able. (Featuring Third Party candidate and Morman on Romney. Speaking of dissin'genius.]

"if I were dictator"

Blair loses job. But as far as President of Europe, Blair
"...is increasingly willing to put himself forward for the job if it comes with real powers to intervene in defence and trade affairs."

As far as U.S. and a third party?
"The lesser of two evils...is still evil."

Yeah but, if the lesser is the loser, the greater evil wins. Therefore does it make sense that with Edwards out, and Nader supported Edwards, and with McCain in(?) and Ron Paul is against the war, that there be a Paul/Nader ticket?

Is there another kind of politics or reality?

I'll have to check and get back to you.

[Let me just say that having read 3 of the links here and part of the fourth, I am back to you. My reliance was mostly on the gist I presumed from a quick glance at the articles and maybe where I already wanted to go. I'm not disappointed in where it took me but the pieces are a bit heavy for my fare. In fact the last is a little bit romantic in a horror sort of way, which draws me back to another intersecting thought. The roots of Romanticism in literature being the French Revolution and its libertarianism and egalitarianism. I must also note the hope for goodness in humanity and the scepticism of rationality. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, The Modern Prometheus, comes to mind. A more balanced approach is what I would suggest. Meanwhile I finished another loose end or article not even in this loop. "We are the World" in The Nation takes a look at two books on our place in the world. How ironic that realism was offered as an opposite to the Zeitgist of ideas.]
[2-4-08: undated brackets are same day updates, here I footnote the two books that "We are the World" reviews. A Case for Goliath and A New Deal for the World. What a deal! And harkening back to Huntington's Clash of Civilizations. A word comes to mind: academic. Some are less than academic, but all can become academic, if we don't make the connections of the varied fields.]