"Mike Huckabee, the Baptist preacher and former governor of Arkansas, has taken the lead among Republicans in four out of five states where presidential candidates are due to be chosen soon after Christmas. A new poll puts him ahead of Rudy Giuliani in Florida - once the cornerstone of the former New York mayor's White House campaign - and in Michigan, birthplace of Mitt Romney, his other main rival. He is also ahead in Iowa, where the race begins in earnest with caucuses on January 3."
(Sunday Telegraph)
What effect may the recent rise of Mike Huckabee's popularity - polls in October had rated his support at only 4% - have on the selection of the Republican and Democrat candidates?
Although polls have proved unreliable indicators in predicting previous Presidential primaries, Huckabee's rise suggests the interest of many potential voters, a large percentage of whom are undecided, may have shifted somewhat from the typical Republican and Democrat, Red and Blue political divisions that have dominated previous elections to the wish for a candidate who stresses independence of partisan party politics and represents, personally, traditional moral values.
Huckabee's charm and political savvy overcame the fact he had no money or powerful backers. Whereas Romney spent some $7 million in Iowa, Huckabee made do with $300,000. But now he is beginning to attract some powerful backers, and Ed Robbins has signed on as his campaign manager. Robbins managed Ronald Reagen's successful 1984 campaign and ranks as a party insider.
Perhaps the message of Huckabee's success will persuade the Republican party power-makers to shift support toward John McCain's candidacy as the most electable Republican? That might lead to a McCain-Giuliani ticket.
Whom would the Democrats prefer to counter a McCain-Giuliani candidacy? Clinton has already positioned herself as a tough "moderate" compared to the other Democrats and is the logical choice to oppose McCain. Obama would be a risky choice as a running mate . Although he has great charisma and is articulate , his approval among those who actually vote may not be good to bet on. John Edwards seems a better choice to gain the traditional Democrat vote.
What seems evident is that the situation has become more complex and unpredictable than anyone anticipated. And Huckabee's rise is a symptom of this.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 73
Romney will then proceed to craush all Republican rivals in NH. The second place finisher in NH will be lucky to come within 15 points of Romney.
The NH win will give Romney momentum going into MI where he will win again.
From there on it will snowball as he wins the GOP nomination
His health care plans center on prevention as if better exercise will reverse health costs in 10 years, thereby rendering the concept meaningless to those dealing with the system today. He lays out the tired old Repub idiot nonsense of that government needs to spend less and not increase tax yet supports the so called "Fair Tax," a trojan horse. How much of political rhetoric is designed to delude, confuse and lull the voter into vauge sense of dependability and security while not saying a damn thing?
Perhaps his appeal is that he doesn't seems to lay on the BS as thick as others. The key is to LOOK sincere.
But, I still like Fred, and still support Hillary, but Obama would be fine, I think, but not quite sure yet
I am not uncomfortable with our President being a religious person. In fact, it is almost REQUIRED that any serious candidate declare that they are a Christian. It is a de facto litmus test which is supposedly forbidden by the Constitution. But I AM uncomfortable with a religious leader as president who states publicly that he will try to impose his religious views on everyone.
Fortunately, I don't think either of them is electable. Certainly not Huckabee, and probably not Romney.
Give truth a chance !!! ... of course that really narrows down the choices doesn't it ?
I agree Ron Paul is the only candidate telling the truth about how the government works and the monetary system . How many of his supporters understand what he knows? He is perceived as authentic, yes. So is Huckabee perceived as not a phony, and in spite of the stories about his political and personal record, he has proved himself to be an effective professional politician as Governor in a Democrat state and not a crook. Whether he would be a puppet of the Establishment is an unknown. There are few who wouldn't.
TA will you come back when Paul does not win the nomination?
But...we have to face facts, at least in the short term. Ron Paul may be an interesting candidate, but he is not electable. Not even close to electable, because his views threaten those big money interests, just as the views of Kucinich and Edwards do. They are also unelectable. Romney, Rudy and Huckleberry Hound...I dunno, maybe Rudy has a shot at it. On the other side, it's Clinton or Obama. Period.
Huckabee is terrifying. The evangelicals are being snowed by the slickest conman this side of Bill Clinton. They refuse to look at any of his real accomplishments in Arkansas which all involved raising taxes and spending more money because they like his religion. The only candidate with a social agenda that is more progressive and more expensive is Hillary herself.
The man fancies himself a religious scholar and an ethical man. Neither would have thrown out that disingenuous question about Jesus and Satan being brothers and then claim it was taken out of context and he really didn't know. That's a Hillary trick.
Nope!
That's right Clark would rather see them murdered in the womb...right komrade kent?
I didn't know Des Moines, Iowa and Boston Globe and "Holy Joe" Lieberman, the "Dem" Senator were going to come out for McCain. I can't help wondering if the power brokers may have been behind it to stop Huckabee. He's a long shot but he is in sync with the people and has momentum.
As I've mentioned I worked with Ron Paul, a fine man, on monetary reform before he entered politics in 1974 (and lost). What was seen as going on then with the monetary manipulation has produced the results today. Just "follow the money." The transfer of wealth from the West to Asia explains a lot of what has been taking place since the late 60's . The standard of living in the US has been declining in real terms since then. It is covered up by political hype and debt. Reagen was the first President to see the US become a debtor nation. What isn't being said openly is that the US and European governments, pushed by the central banks, are looking at nationalizing private banks, and doing reorganization similar to what FDR did in 1932. Last week Citigroup, the world's biggest bank, sold a share stake to the Abu Dhabi government to raise desperately needed funds; Barclays has sold a stake to the Chinese government; the Swiss bank UBS a stake to the Singapore government. They are the first of many. The financial crisis could prompt the partial takeover of the western banking system by Arab and Asian governments.
Today's Financial Times UK is posing the question whether the governments will allow real estate prices to decline 40% to "correct" the situation or opt for the inflation : "This has been the year when many deeply held beliefs have been challenged. One such belief was that central banks have the toolkit to sort out any conceivable economic or financial crisis. Last week's co-ordinated liquidity action by five central banks taught us that this is not the case. The idea was that a co-ordinated response would reassure the markets, but it had the opposite effect. It turned out that market participants are not infinitely stupid. They know by now that this is not a liquidity crisis at its core. If it had been, it would be over by now. It is a fully fledged solvency crisis that has arisen because two giant and interlinked bubbles burst simultaneously – one in property, one in credit – leaving banks and investors on the brink of bankruptcy, some hanging on by their fingertips. Yet there is nothing the central banks are offering at this stage to alleviate a solvency crisis. "
So the message from last week is that central banks have no game plan. Expect continued stress in financial markets for most of next year and possibly beyond. Expect also further declines in property prices in the US and the UK and spill-overs to the real economy.
I have a question for you based possibly on the outcomes in the primaries, etc in the next few weeks: Do you think that a third party candidacy might arise in the following few months? (This question links to a few others in the text of this comment.)
I think that the choices for the Presidency and the Congress will continue to become more 'complex' in the coming year due to the likely awarenesses that will start to appear to US (WE THE PEOPLE) in the almost full year before the election next November. Discontent may start to dot the choice between two Presidential candidates (Clinton, Huckabee), (Clinton, McCain), (Obama, Huckabee), etc, etc. There are no clear runners (as I see the tea leaves) that will not experience some 'trauma' after the likely existential event- impacts of the coming year! I don't think that a THIRD PARTY possibility (and possibly even a FOURTH PARTY candidacy) is out of the question.
Al Gore (now with his VP background, Nobel Prize credentials and growing WORLD respect a-growing) may find growing support IF voter consciousness really begins to sense the dangers ahead in environmental and, say. energy and oil costs ahead (long-run issues here are scary). If the $ and Euro (accompanied by 'recession talk and economic difficulties) crises begin to develop (along with continuing corruption and MAJOR real-estate financial and bank problems), this may show a path for a fine man like Michael Bloomberg along possibly with a colleague like Sen Joe Biden, or even -- more remotely -- Sen Chuck Hegal (Party break-away Senators?) joining him to focus on WORLD VIEWS and SHAPE OF THE FUTURE ISSUES too.
In my view it would not be a bad thing to start to unravel the far too dominant PARTY LOYALTIES' issues with upsetting third party problems that hook up to AMERICA's issues versus Party issues. It's time to focus on and come to understand more fully the REASONS why we Americans have tired of the Two Party bickerings in our PRIME governmental entity -- our CONGRESS too. One could easily build a case for a major overhaul of voting rules in both the House and the Senate. We have unresponsive and conflicted paralysis, at times, in both of OUR Houses. There is also the further issue of the 'POWERS' of the Presidency under conditions where National issues are becoming significantly and becoming EVER MORE FREQUENTLY LINKED to International and OTHER NATION interests. Is OUR world inching closer and closer to a Wendell Willkie (others too) vision of "ONE WORLD"?
I am no Constitutional Scholar and I wonder TOO what would happen if say the November Vote in a THREE PARTY CONTEST resulted in a 32%, 32%, and 36% popular vote. Would that bring in a major glitch in the election and certification of the selection and installation of a NEW President, and could that result bring in the undemocratic POWERS of OUR Constitutional Electoral College? . Would there have to be a NEW POPULAR vote? Would the Supreme Court decide (we know what happened under different circumstances in 2000)? Or would a major 'chaos' be the consequence? We hardly need such possible outcomes!
Dick
We have a one-party system in practice - the last almost-- Presidential candidate who represented a serious challenge
to this was Robert Kennedy.And it is controlled by an international establishment.The brilliant Carroll Quigley (1910-1977) in his scholarly Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (1964), who was an insider, describes how this system developed in Europe and became established here;he correctly predicted the course of history into the 21st century . He was a frank supporter of this one-party system . Most successful politicians have willingly conformed to its rules. (Dr. Quigley was a mentor of Bill Clinton at Georgetown.) Many years ago, Nicholas Murray Butler, who was installed as President of Columbia University by the tycoon J P Morgan, expressed the Establishment view: "The world is divided in to three classes of people: a very small group that makes things happen, a somewhat larger group that watches things happen, and the great multitude which never knows what happened." Dr. Quigley's knowledge of modern military strategy was as impressive as his understanding of Western and Eastern cultural values, globalization and the role of Central Banks.
For Quigley, US elections were useful in correcting corruption by one party or another, but they should not change or interfere with the Establishment policy. The 'Hope' in his Tragedy and Hope represents the man-made millennium of a collectivist one-world society which the world will enjoy when the "network"' achieves its goal of ruling the world. He says the "network" already has such power and influence that it is now too late for the little people to turn back the tide. All who resist represent the "Tragedy." He makes a persuasive, ethical case in the 1350 pages of his book, based on a deep knowledge of history. Wendell Wilke's utopian "One World" seems naive in comparison.
I don't see any possibility of a serious Third Party challenge for 2008. However, I think the choice of candidates for both parties and the subsequent campaign are very much in flux. I would not rule out Bill Richardson, for example. He is perhaps the best qualified and most experienced of the Democrats to be President. He is also an insider, with strong ties to the banking establishment. I like Joe Biden as a Senator, but I consider his thinking is ten years in the past and he is not an executive type. I wonder if the other Democrat candidates might manage to screw up and find ways to lose!
Huckabee is certainly a long shot, but is in sync with the people. It is difficult to guess what sort of President he would be because he seems to have limited intelligence and knowledge and no previous connection to the Establishment.
I doubt that it will ever happen. The only alternative, I believe, is for one of the parties to "reinvent" itself as a true representative of the people, without the taint of Big Money. But how could that be done?
Here's one idea.
Of course, this is an exaggeration, but the fact is, strict libertarians, which Ron Paul clearly is, want to dismantle every element of social safety net and privatize the entire infrastructure. However you may feel about this, the fact remains that it is an agenda that is seen as radical and extreme by the vast majority of the country.
As for the viability of third party candidates, I've come to believe that the two party system was intentionally designed to divide this nation, in order to keep the people from truly gaining power. The powers that be would never allow a viable third party to arise, specifically because of this, imo.
I just read the referenced article of yours and found it very interesting. I don't know if I can go along with the dual characterization: (1) Pragmatists and (2) Idealists, but I catch -- I think -- your INTENT in making the separation. I think that another characterization may be emerging: (1) DOMESTIC REALISTS, and (2) WORLD REALISTS.
Really, I think that the growing WORLD interdependencies among Nation States is far more significant for future Peace and Prosperity than the likelihoods that Nation States will continue, in the next hundred or so years, to be viable political/institutional designs. INTERNATIONAL and LINKAGE ideas, and a deep understanding of emerging INTERDEPENDENCIES among Nations will enter to exterminate the centrality of domestic issus as PRIMARY when we in our USA pick future leaders. The EMPIRE logic that many think is the course chosen in recent years, by some of the 'elites' (like the neo-cons) in the USA will continue to fail from a lack of vision about the presence of REAL complexities that must be addressed with a VISION of peaceful coopeeration WORLDWIDE rather than a resort to official violence and military threats. A future war may well obliterate the WORLD, so the NATIONS of the WORLD will fight stupidity with thought rather than threats and untoward anti-human actions. Global Warming can bring the same result. So can a notion of self-importance in Nation-State terms, when accompanied by potential; violence and war planning.
I'm of the further opinion that no-person can be a leader if s/he thinks that answers are simple and that uninformed opinion can produce proper answers to any important domestic or international question. Interdependencies will continue to dominate and thus produce complexities that will demand most intelligent attention at both high and low levels of governments. The ideas that legalities rather than MORALITIES when solving problems will diminish as lawyers become replaced by different kinds of trained minds and hearts.
A good move over the next few decades would be to replace legal professional members (say in our Congress and Executive branches) with scientifically and analytically trained persons whose professional lives have been determinded by the need for evidence-based (scientific and other) analyses tht ALWAYS demand OBJECTIVE look-sees when critically important decisions seem to be the basic need. I would also add in to the Executive/Administrative need -- when solving problems -- an especially big-dose of WORLD HISTORY and a sense of the need for an enlightened form of humane spirituality. REALITY!!
We need NEW kinds of LEADERS: Analytically trained problem-solvers with broad knowledge of human affairs where value-differences MUST BE accommodated. Dysfunctional mind sets must be made to disappear from important leadership positions. The need is for INFORMED CHANGE AGENTS WHO CARE ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE USA and the WORLD!
Dick
I tend to agree that the TWO Party system blocks the development of other viable Party possibilities. I'm not certain that they planned to do so that way, but here it is whether we (THE PEOPLE) like it or not.
Dick
Religion speaks of the war in the heavens being played out here on earth ... and I agree that they are and it is ... we here on earth will have lost the manifested war of our souls IF we allow a one world government that is based upon Duality (+/-) rather than Trinity (+=-) ... at the present we have people attempting to achieve CONTROL who are very much just Dualists. We can have no viable future in Dualistic systems of Winner/Loser relationships.
Our Leaders must be people of wisdom that recognise that the Equality of Diversity leads to cooperation between opposites that result in synergistic creation where we have Win/Win ... rather than the win/lose of mere duality, it is the latter which ultimately takes the deteriorating path of half life destruction ending in "nothing".
Of course I live in NH so we get to meet every one.
We are very fortunate. The thing that gets me is our state ranks second or third as the whitest state in the Union.
I agree with the need for a broader political perspective, particularly with regard to terrorism and global warming. These problems will NOT be solved by individual nations going their own way. I think the distinction between the ideas in my article and your comments above is...tactics vs. strategy. My article deals with the (relatively) short term actions (tactics) needed to wrest control of our government from the powers of greed and tyranny. Once that is done, I would hope that we can move on to the larger issues of becoming a member of the global community of nations, whose borders, boundaries and ethnic differences must gradually blur over time. Nationalism is tribalism writ large. We need to outgrow it and become citizens of the earth, all with an equal stake in preserving and conserving its life-giving resources.
"One Nation, Under a One Party System: Bill Clinton, 'George H.W. Bush will help President Hillary'
CNN
2007-12-18 17:10:00
Former President Bill Clinton said Monday that the first thing his wife Hillary will do when she reaches the White House is dispatch him and his predecessor, President George H.W. Bush, on an around-the-world mission to repair the damage done to America's reputation by the current president - Bush's son, George W. Bush. "
Don't you think Ralph Nader has covered a lot of what you were saying in a very practical way? I do. The Repubs and Dems , except for Paul , have not said anything.
Have you voted? http://www.whowouldtheworldelect.com/
I questioned what it means. My guess is that mostly young people (and the few who have long understood Ron Paul's message) have actually voted from all those countries. Paul had nothing to do with the very successful movement on the Web. But they raised $6 million on Dec 16 - a one-day record for any candidate ever. I voted for Paul, of course, although I will vote for Ralph Nader most likely if he runs.
Obama? That would be interesting. I am no fan of Oprah. She has pulled some dirty
tricks with people I know to protect the establishment . I remember her when she was a confused, mousey person who did minor TV reports for a local Baltimore station for some years. She got her act together and had luck later, but she is a "bargainer" who kisses the Establishment's ars. I am not impressed by her support for Obama.
I think we may all be on the same wavelength: the PARTY SYSTEM has begun to be seriously antiquated and in need of serious repairs as a way to legislate for the broad body (USA, etc) politic. Clarke, I do think that the notion of a ONE Party system could be a misnomer. If consciousness, conscience, wisdom and seeking for TRUTH with which to create a more satisfied and TRUTH SEEKING ekectorate, were all at the front-end of a TRUE LEGISLATIVE process, I wouldn't give a tinker's damn if there were two parties or 50 parties.
This may simply be saying that what democracies NEED desparately in the years and decades ahead are Legislators within Legislative Bodies who seek to do the 'will of the (hopefully informed) people' always within the guidelinss of both human progress and morality (much broader than the LAWS OF THE LAND).
Plato had it right when he criticized DEMOCRACY-IN-ACTION after the condemnation of Socrates. (Was he saying that Democracy stifles WISDOM?)He understood that the THEORETICAL DEMOCRATIC MODE through time got corrupted by the ILL-FORMED opinions and ACTIONS (especially) of emerging pseudo-leaders. The Peloponnesian Wars re-oreinted our World's first stab at DEMOCRACY (and proper FREEDOM & LIBERTY) as sound broad-visoned rules BY, FOR and OF the PEOPLE (fast forwarding ahead to Lincoln), to generate CIVIL SOCIETIES.
National Democracies are bound to look and DEVELOP very differently as the communications technologies of today become embedded in and used all over OUR (i.e. meaning all people, everywhere) GLOBE. There is no stopping -- AT LEAST -- the increasing pressure for needed growth of both TRUTH and WISDOM (accompanied by ever greater needs for careful FILTERING) to further guide the evolution and involution (Jerry) of the human race.
A ONE PARTY SYTEM can be easily identified and envisioned (soon?) as a bunch of properly educated legislators (maybe a la Platonic Ideals, Bert) doing what their wisdom, information and consciences and consciousnesses tell them to do WITHOUT the INTERFERENCE of PARTIES and 'elite' Avenue K, special interest hucksters getting in the way.Given the present situation, MY preference would be in this time around (2008) to begin upsetting the PARTY SYSTEM. I have been an INDEPENDENT for most of my life, and I am willing to Gamble that a shock to both dominant parties, right here and now, will be a GOOD THING!
Ms Simone Weil's mystically derived 11 points to generate GOOD SOULS, ubiquitously, can go into play by some necessary UPROOTING, to use the key word of her 11th point. The ONE PARTY objective solution may arise by fostering a THIRD PARTY MAJOR effort this coming November. Let the chips fall where they may????
Dick
So if Nader, or someone like him, runs and gets 10%, and that 10% comes from Hillary's vote, we will have President Rudy or President Mitt.
That is unacceptable to me.
To Clarke, I did not vote in the poll you mentioned, I am not aware of it. As for a comparison between Paul and Nader (I think you were asking) ... I had not thought a whole lot about Nader until after late last night when I watched a 2 hour special on him presented by PBS's Independent Lens program ... I learned so much from that and have a newly informed basis now that makes me deeply respect Ralph Nader all the more. I would pray that a man such as he would become a leader of our people. I would pick him over any that came to mind otherwise, he has certainly earned the right and shown what he is made of.
And that oft presented argument that a vote for him would be a vote for the republicans has far less merit than so many choose to believe ... that was well explained on that show last PM to my satisfaction in that most of the voters that turned out for him were people that most-likely would NOT have even come out to vote IF he had not been running.
But Bert does make a point about that which does mean a lot to a lot of people. It is really too bad when one gets right down to it and how "this" two party system really works anyway ... just as Nader said last night, two heads of the very same corporate beast ! Thanks to "K Street" ... and a whole lot of greed and corruption ...
We really NEED a NADER ... short of that ... maybe a PAUL ... to at least shake things up to where hopefully eventually more people will wake up to the futility of just replacing a republican crook with a democrat crook, all beholding to and dancing to the people in the shadows above, instead of we the people ...
The corruption of the elections in Ohio and New Hampshire - and indications it can be repeated in 2008, is in the news today.
The citizens are turned off, very ill-informed and outrageously manipulated and pandered to and thus persuaded act against their own interest. They will not accept change as long as they believe it can be avoided. Grass roots movements exist and are working together, but they haven't the power to challenge the system yet.
Jerry,
Ron Paul has told the truth, but few understand it. He has no real orgainization. Nader has made the situation understandable and has a progarm to address it but few are learning what he has said.
I got an arrogant response, probably from one of his staff, but signed by him. It basically said that there was no difference in the two parties, so he didn't care who won.
I read a piece recently...don't remember where, maybe here on Gather. The writer was asking Nader a rhetorical question. "Whaddaya think now, Ralph? No difference between Bush and Gore?"
Nader was wrong. Completely and absolutely and arrogantly wrong. We would NOT be in Iraq today, 3000+ American kids would still be alive, and probably a half million Iraqis. The rest of the Iraqis would probably still be living under a repressive regime, but most of them today say they were better off under Saddam.
We would not have pulled out of Kyoto. We would probably be a lot farther down the road to international agreements to fight terrorism...and we would be about a trillion dollars less in debt.
Your were wrong, Ralph. Dead wrong.
My response to his Email, by the way, was a pledge...never to support him again ever.
It was on "that" understanding that Nader got all of the people behind him that did all of the work that was done in his name for us all ... he "owed" the people who understood as he did, not to betray them just for the lessor of two evils ...
The problem with our government is that we the people still think there are two parties working for us rather than themselves ... that is what we need to learn about first ... we will never have a decent government without there being more truth from the top to the bottom.
We will never know whether the US would have invaded Iraq if Gore had been President. Based on Gore's record in Congress and as VP, I think it is possible he might have supported an invasion. He made an excellent speech against it, when other Democrats went along with it, but that doesn't convince me he wouldn't have gone along with an invasion had he been President.
I don't believe Nader's candidacy prevented Gore's winning. I think the best evidence indicates that to be the case, but I don't claim to have an authoritative opinion.
I respectfully disagree, but obviously we will never know what would have happened.
The neocon cabal that Bush assembled was the prime mover that forced the invasion of Iraq, spreading disinformation about WMD's, misleading Congress and the American people. No such group would have been formed by Gore. I don't even think the subject would have come up!
Nader got 2.7% of the vote. Gore lost by a whisker. I think he would have gotten most of that and would have won easily.
Nader was the difference. He is personally responsible for Bush being in office.
I understand your view of the neocons and of Dubya.
Snowcroft and Zinni, Bush Srs advisors, quit Bush jrs administration to oppose the invasion of Iraq. But that doesn't convince me that Iraq was going to be invaded no matter who was President. I think Dubya perhaps was sold the flattering notion of being a "Crusader" and was ,as Snowcroft bitterly remarked "hypnotized by Ariel Sharon."
The powers that control both US parties have their agendas, and they don't serve the United States', Israel's or any nation's interests . Power is the game. I don't claim to know what is in the minds of the Bushes, Blair ,Gore et al. They don't control the policies.
The conduct of the invasion and occupation of Iraq can be interpreted in various ways. It depends on the point of view of whose agenda . Civil war was planned? A simple "statistic': about 80% of marriages in Iraq until 2003 were between Sunni an Shia. Now it's about 6%, and the puppet government pays a $1000 or so as a reward.
The shift of power to Asia is one stage globalization. The subcontracting of globalization to Asia, so they can acqure natural resources from Africa, the Middle East et al. is in whose interests?
Nothing is simple. China has recently signed large contracts s with Afghanistan and Iran. Putin has positdoned Russia as a major player. India will before long surpass China in population and wealth. China is not just "Asia," by way. It will likely become the nation with the largest Christian AND Muslim populations .
Since the 60's the US government has not invested in the education of its citizens, or in its infrstructure, or in providing services such as health care. It has transferred wealth and industry abroad and opened the doors to cheap labor through immigration . The people have been sold a different story and voted against their interest. The standard of living has been decliiung since the early the 1970's, and in real terms the US economy peaked in 1968.
No politician tells this. When Reagen took us to become a debtor nation for the first time in our history, it was "morning in America."
No one questions the US is still the most powerful nation in the world, economically and militarily. But the control has shifted East : our economy has become "a tethered, sacred bull of Asia." Various regional groups as Europe, Russia and China and others have formed relations to limit the US influence..
Bill Richardson has spoken most frankly of the US situation of the candidates, certainly in the case of Iraq in saying total withdrawal is called for. He is an insider and has close ties the banks.
Ron Paul has told the truth, but I don't think he considers himself a serious candidate.
As for Nader and Gore, I think a vote for Nader was the better choice
I do not think Gore would have made that decision. Unless you disagree with my contention that Gore would have won if Nader had pulled out, then your "better choice" (voting for Nader) was a vote for Bush to win.
Most of what you say is exactly right...about the fading of our economic and military power, and the covert and overt policies by our enemies AND our friends to limit our power and influence. I believe that they had no choice with the cowboys we have running our government.
Johnson inherited a Vietnam war from Kennedy, and even from Eisenhower before that, who was the first President to send "advisors" there..
Johnson was already embedded in Vietnam when he took over the Presidency. Whether the choice to continue, and to escalate, was his, or whether he was influenced, I cannot say, but he did not make the decision to become involved in Vietnam. It was already decided long before he became President.
Only those who really seek the ultimate truth will ever have a chance to know it ... conspiracies abound ... always have. Fact not theory.
As for Vietnam, your account is not accurate. I was in DC during JFK's administration and had high-level contacts in the Pentagon, Congress and White House. JFK had already given orders that initiated the process of withdrawal from Vietnam. Although he was pursuing the Cold War, he agreed with de Gaulle's advice to get out. The military plans for periodic conflicts to use up and replenish arms and technology.
But my point about Johnson is certainly correct. The country was already embedded in Vietnam when he because President.
So you are saying that the military forced him to stay and continue the conflict so they could use up their old equipment (and people)?
How did they do that?
Conspiracies do indeed exist, Jerry. But we are talking about a Grand Conspiracy here, one that nobody in all of government has exposed. I just find that hard to believe. We have always had "hawks" and "doves." Right now, the "hawks" have control, but that is about to change.
Check the documentation , which was Top Secret for many years.
On October 2, 1963, Kennedy received the report of a mission to Saigon by McNamara and Maxwell Taylor, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). The main recommendations, which appear in Section I(B) of the McNamara-Taylor report, were that a phased withdrawal be completed by the end of 1965 and that the "Defense Department should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1,000 out of 17,000 U.S. military personnel stationed in Vietnam by the end of 1963." At Kennedy's instruction, Press Secretary Pierre Salinger made a public announcement that evening of McNamara's recommended timetable for withdrawal.
The withdrawal recommended by McNamara on October 2, 1963 was embraced in secret by Kennedy on October 5 and implemented by his order on October 11, also in secret: NSAM ( National Security Memo)#263. It states the President approved the military recommendations contained in section I B (1-3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.
One explanation for the secrecy after October 2 is a diplomatic reason. Kennedy did not want Premier Diem in Vietnam or anyone else to interpret the withdrawal as part of any pressure tactic (other steps that were pressure tactics had also been approved). I think JFK intended to be out of Vietnam by 1964 or at the latest, 1965. He wanted to make it appear that the withdrawal was not from failure but in line with our successfully achieving our strategic aims.
After Kennedy's assassination NSAM - 263 was shelved by Lyndon Johnson and his own NSAM implemented: NSAM - 273 of November 26, 1963 reversing the planned withdrawal.
Arthur M. Schlesinger's Robert Kennedy and His Times dscusses the "first application" in October 1963 "of Kennedy's phased withdrawal plan." McNamara's 1995 memoir In Retrospect discusses this in Chapter 3, titled "The Fateful Fall of 1963: August 24–November 22, 1963."
You ask how the military has the power to determine policy . Basically, because of the National Security Act of 1947,we have an establishment , like a secret government, that is protected from financial and other oversight by elected officials . Security clearance of elected officials, including Presidents, is relatively not high and restricts their access to much information of the activities of the Defense Department and other agencies. We know of the power of the lobbyists over politicians . Three lobbyists on K street for every elected official is one evidence of this. Politicians who don't cooperate with the aims of the establishment not only don't get financial support, they get targeted for defeat. Presidents have little power to oppose the policies of the establishment. They know they have a "need to know" status regarding much of what their own government agencies do . If they don't toe the line they can be replaced. Their choices are limited and they can be pressured to conform.
I can understand you may think , "So what else is new, this is the way all governments are and have always been." Sure, cultures, civilizations and nations may repeat the same patterns but we are involved in a particular phase at a particular time. The situation in the United States and the world has certain features that present specific challenges now.
There are always conspiracies at every level. You may question what I write in many ways as inaccurate or exaggerated. I have not even offered my speculations on the future or proposed any policies to be implemented. But I don't think I have shown a predilection to "conspiracy theories." I have written a lot on subjects such as the Middle East, Iraq, Iran and the international situation and I think that is evidence I have not been prone to inventing conspiracy theories.
Yet you say that, you do not involve yourself in conspiracy theories ... how can you get away with that ? (I mean, more power to you if you can)
I realize that conspiracies exist, the ones that should be of the deepest concern are the ones so deep that they can never even be suggested to exist without ones being called every derogatory shameful name in the book associated with being an idiot kook ... that "just theorizes for sensationalism" ... according to every "normal, follow their leader conservative" who would never dare begin to open to such possibility because their "peers" will belittle them just as they do the rest of us.
Do you have any answers for how to get people to begin to realize that their perceived "reality" may need some "re-visioning" ?
It's the way our government works. I don't like it, but I wouldn't call it a conspiracy.
The problem with sales taxes, of course, is that they are profoundly regressive. Poor people spend a much larger portion of their incomes than rich people. His answer to that is to provide a cash payback to people under some arbitrary poverty line, thus creating a huge welfare system. Congress, along with most tax experts, have rejected going to a pure sales tax system. It's considered a radical, harebrained scheme that would hurt everyone except the rich. It's just one more Huckabee poison pill, along with his stated goals to outlaw abortion and abolish Social Security. I think he wants to teach Creation in school science classes too. What a nutcase!
And that is the same reason that you yourself probably use to NOT believe in conspiracy theories concerning what some of us suggest as being likely rather than maybe only slightly possible.
The "non-believer" probably just has not enough concern, yet having tended to trust his politicians and his government to do the right thing by the people. Such as to not allow the media to be taken over by big money interests so they can feed us propaganda rather than substantive truth ... that they would never intentionally lie to us because they serve us as is their duty based upon their oath of office ... just a good bunch of folks doing the very best that they can with our overall benefit having primacy.
Well let me tell you ... that when some people have had enough of the lies, they begin to seek out information in order to better understand what may really be going on ... and when one gets to "that" point of "interest", they find the information extremely compelling and are then driven to continue the search ... what they find is all kinds of facts that the uninterested would never come across ... thus the uninterested take the tack that their "believable" leaders of the system insist upon ... "we are doing nothing wrong and all those who claim otherwise are just sicko conspiracy theorists" and of course all "good" people would never stoop so low as to not "trust" their leaders more ... and the ego fears take over by most to where they would be "properly" ashamed to be called a "conspiracy theorist" because everybody "normal" knows them all to be just nut cases ...
I will tell you this Bert (and others), IF you knew what I know, you would surely believe that there are extremely deep and sinister conspiracies being perpetrated upon the worlds people ... and many of them have been handed down through families and other "organizations" throughout the ages. I do not love people any less because of such thinking and actions, but I sure feel for them in the sense that they know not what they are doing to themselves in the bigger picture that involves eternity.
Knowledge is power. Civilzations have always depended on institutions that limit access to knowledge . Religions were created to restrain the selfish aspects of human nature and further the better elements. Few people are capable of living responsibly in society without established laws and codes of behavior. A small percentage of humanity are able to think rationally and impartially. Most are ruled by emotions and natural desires. There is still a Master/Slave order in civilzations, although some periods of some civilizations may be more enlightened than others. The founders of our Republic were a wise group. We know the American Revolution was successful because a small percentage of the people supported it . Most feared change and many actively opposed those who fought against England. The fact that many of the citizens were well-informed and actively participated in politics led to creation of a government in which the elected representives served the interests of the people, although the institution of slavery was maintained , voting rights were restricted in significant ways and those with wealth and property were given rights that protected them from the being at the mercy of the majority.
In the 20th century, Nicholas Murray Butler, President of Columbia University expressed the contemporary view of the American Establishment: "The world is divided into three classes of people: a very small group that makes things happen, a somewhat larger group that watches things happen, and the great multitude which never knows what happened."
Today, the American public is poorly informed and often misiniformed about what its rerpresentatives do. Their consent is manufactured, so they may vote against their interest believing otherwise. Many are turned off from participating in the political process. Few Americans know their history or our place in the world.They don't understand other nations and what think of us our how our nation acts toward them.
There are always "conspiracies" at every level, beginning with families and extending to every aspect of society. "Conspiracy theories" may contain truth or be false. Those who know the "secrets, " may be wise human beings who seek the welfare of humanity or psychopaths without conscience who lust for power over others.
I understand your view that knowledge of universal spiritual laws and values can change the world. But this has always been so. But few have ever chosen to study their their selfishness and fear of change. Until they make this sacrifice they will not see such knowledge is real. They will continue to imagine Science or Religion or some other dogma will lead them to truth. They will not learn to look within and see who they are and why they are living. They may be easily misled by false prophets who promise them freedom, happiness or salvation .
[ Editor's Note: Plutocracy refers to the rule or power through wealth or by the wealthy. In a plutocracy, the degree of economic inequality is high, while the level of social mobility is low. This can apply to a multitude of government systems, as the key elements of plutocracy transcend and often occur concurrently with the features of those systems. The word plutocracy is derived from the ancient Greek root ploutos, meaning wealth and kratein, meaning to rule or to govern.]
Aristotle is alleged to have said that the strength of a nation is built on its middle class. And dumb is dangerous. The more ignorant people are, the more desperate they are, the more it hurts all of us. It's in everyone's best interest to have an informed, intelligent society.
The vacuum is so big right now – all of the institutions are failing. You name it – education, health care, military, economic, medical – they are all failing. When the vacuum is this big, it could be filled with anything. It could be filled with more Fascism, bigotry and hypocrisy – or it could be filled with beauty, art, love and understanding and dignity and passion and respect. It's up to us to fill it. But people have to do it in their individual lives. " -Gerald Celente, The Trends Journal
http://www.quaker.org/pamphlets/wpl1958a.html
William Penn Lecture 1958
Peace and Tranquility:
The Quaker Witnesses
Delivered at
Race Street Meeting House
Philadelphia
by
Ira De A. Reid
[concluding words] ...The witness of Friends has provided comfort where there was despair, and hope where there was uncertainty. To the present and the future, girded with the quest for world peace and an inward tranquility, Friends seemed called upon to continue their witness and to encompass this witness with two safeguards. The one is courage which stems from their inward peace and which will give them that courage which Plato described as "Wisdom concerning dangers." The second safeguard is contained in Timothy's letter to the Christian church in Laodicea. The church was advised to be spiritually and socially keen and alert and to keep its "commission free from stain." How better can one translate into effective social action that which is of God in every man?
Tell us more, Jerry. Tell us what you know...and how you came to know it.
Well Bert, it is my fondest desire to be able to INform people of such. That is why I wrote a book (free down-loadable version(s) on my website) and attempted to get the "word" out to all people, that is what I have also been attempting to do here on Gather for about 18 months now. It is not something easily done I have found.
First off, people have to have some desire to know such truths (which are naturally "subjective" as far as I am concerned) ... thus it will be found that what I call "my knowing" really is as much subjective as it is objective ... meaning that for me it is very much INtuitive ... born of Spirit.
Thus for the average secular or non-spiritual person who frowns on subjectivity in favor of objectivity, my arguments would carry very little weight. Meaning that for every word written (objective factors) there are probably oppositional words also written, so it then becomes a matter of what a reader "prefers" to believe as to what or which "story" they take up and believe.
In my case, historically, I have always preferred highest truth, then in later life deciding that man lied an awful lot, especially our elected leaders, even historians, I became discouraged and depressed about the condition of the world ... I really did not want to play the world "game" anymore because of the deceit all around.
But one thing led to another and I had a spontaneous spiritual awakening that led me to believe in and trust my INtuitive subjective "take" on things that most people only look at objectively ... at least admittedly.
So in short, I have read countless books since that day of "awakening" and that from a perspective of, do the words "resonate" with a meaning that I can believe is truthful or not. As I have written articles on here on Gather, one of the most "resonate" things that I have ever read concerning "conspiracy" was that of the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" ... but that was, as I have said, via the looking between the lines, so to speak, for whether the essence of what it says about man's relationship to men had any true meaning without dwelling excessively on the specifics such as the arguable relevance to Russians/Zionists and especially the Jews in general ... those things being so inflammatory and the reason being for the "claimed" fraudulence of the papers. In the "total" of that "package" is the undercurrent of the behind the scenes manipulation of this entire world, the deepest and darkest secret that I am aware of ... and that fitting so very well of countless "other" things I have both read of and heard of that back it all up and make it all fit together like the pieces of a huge complicated puzzle ... with so much complication thrown in as outright lies, but far worse being the "disinformation" where lies are subtly intermixed with truths so as to confuse most anyone, especially the "objective" seeker of information.
But as far as I am now concerned, it is all about the ongoing control of this entire world and what it takes to do so ... along with what it takes to keep the populace unsuspecting and in the dark about it all so that they (we/us) can be "used" to maximum benefit of our controllers ... those who actually benefit the most and are able to pressure our more "visible" controllers (our politicians) who actually mostly answer to them rather than us ...
So I can tell nothing to anyone that is not at least open to investigating for truth ... everything I say is easily refuted by those that would choose to. Those that seem to me to have closed their minds to such possibilities are the ones that yell back the loudest what they have been taught by the social interests that stand to lose from such knowledge, to prey upon ego fears of ridicule ... I have no such fears, but I do have concerns that far too many do, and that is why it is so hard to get the truth out to the public.
Every single story about conspiracy is first ridiculed no end, as designed to squash them at the very beginning ... many are even formulated on the most ridiculous and unbelievable things just to be used over and over as a supposed example of ALL theories ... disinformation being most effective. Then of course it makes good sense for the upstanding "believer" in the sanctity of "our great system" to just insist that those of us that do not go along are just paranoid activist troublemakers a little, or a lot, crazy.
But to each their own. I am always happy to answer any specific question for an honest seeker though.
Now, because you do not have hard evidence does not mean that you are wrong. It just means that your statements are unprovable...and unrefutable. In that sense, they are BELIEFS, not KNOWLEDGE...and on that point, I must differ with your statement:
I am definitely NOT saying you are wrong. But I am a member of the Skeptics Society.
Here is an excerpt from our creed:
If you would like to know more about the Skeptics Society, here is a link to their website.
So sorry if it seemed that I was implying that I had certain objective "facts" about what I know ... I do, but as I said, another view can also have their own facts to offset mine. In being a believer in the spiritual, I "know" that there are deeper meanings to word arrangements than just the "literal" meanings that so many swear by. Behind the explicit there is often a missed implicit, there is often (usually always) an a priori "intention", recognised or not, in the a posteriori "result".
And I do believe that you do have an open mind of which being skeptical helps protect in a healthy way.
The irony is that when Michael Shermer claims to have "disproved" something you can be pretty sure he's wrong! He doesn't understand the application of the scientific method .