That was excellent.
I sight better than anything Russert ever dared say.

"welfare of this Republic..."
But isn't this Republic of America of which Vidal (whom I love) speaks, itself a product of British colonialism, which was modeled after Roman Imperialism?
IMHO the creation and maintenance of this Republic, a defacto European outpost on a Non-European Continent, is one of the primary causes of imbalance and strife over the last 500 years.
I wonder if Vidal, a noted historian, has ever contemplated what history would have been like had Cuahtemoc made the crossing first, and wiped out 95% of Europe's population from diseases brought over, and then burned and outlawed European history and culture, culminating with the creation of a "Republic" and the replacement of major European Capitals, with New Tenochtitlan, and New Xocimillco.
Would a Republic that was born out of that exploitation and genocide of the indigenous populations, a Republic which still practices those heinous traditions, be worthy saving?
Do we really need to save Rome2.0?
Rather, couldn't we use our vast resources to contemplate what should come next, that will help restore the balance that has been lost?

Time for a New Constitutional Convention.

Time for a New Constitutional Convention.

Nice to dream, isn't it?

Can you imagine all of the Corporations having a seat at the table helping to write a new one?

The new Constitution would look exactly like the Iraqii one that Bremer and the Neo-Cons put up there.

No thanks, the 1789 one will do just fine for now

The useless and worthless Dems continue to enable Bush. Why wouldn't they? They have been since 2000. Why would they stop now? Why did anyone expect them to stop in 2006 when they became the majority in power in congress? (Answer: Wishful-thinking and false hope and refusing to look at this stuff realistically).

Anyone surprised by this?...

Democrats to back down on Iraq war conditions

Lawmakers are arranging to send Bush $165 billion in new money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, enough to last for about a year and well beyond when Bush leaves office on January 20.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/...l_nm/iraq_usa_funding_dc

Dictator Bush is leaving "office" on January 20th? I'll believe it when I see it.

And there are still those who are wishful-thinking and living in delusions and illusions that these war criminals will somehow be impeached?

Hardly!

Nothing is going to happen to them. The Dems will make sure of that. Meanwhile, many gullible people still support these scum simply because these scum have a D behind their name. And these Traitor politicians know that many people will continue to support them and vote for them regardless of what they do for the Bush Crime Family. (Because party-line voting is in the programming of most people.) These Traitors to the US Consitution are just too damn lazy to re-register as what they really are: Repugs charading as Dems.

I will be voting Green Party just like I have the past 8 years. I am not fooled at all and flatly refuse to vote for the slightly lesser of 2 pathetic evils when there is an outstanding Green Party candidate on the ballot.

It is a pity most people don't have the good sense to vote their conscience and FOR their own best interest.

Nunyabiz #5 wrote:

I will be voting Green Party just like I have the past 8 years. I am not fooled at all and flatly refuse to vote for the slightly lesser of 2 pathetic evils when there is an outstanding Green Party candidate on the ballot. It is a pity most people don't have the good sense to vote their conscience and FOR their own best interest.

Right-on!

Well, if there is an "election" I'll either be voting for McKinney or Nader/Gonzales who are for legitimate and real positive change as opposed to just saying the words "change/hope" every-other-sentence---to bamboozle the Dem sheep---and then planning to keep the pro-war status quo. I'm not about to vote for the supposedly/allegedly slightly lesser of 2 pathetic evils either. Not about to. The pathetic Dem koolaid drinking suckers have been voting for the so-called "lesser of two evils" one "election" cycle after the other and the damn fools still don't see where it has gotten "us" as a nation....in this political hell hole. They don't seem to learn from the past.

It's true, most people don't have the intelligence or courage to vote their best interest which is not either of these two pro-war, pro-Bush corporatists. Instead, many people vote out of fear as well as from childhood party-line programming. They can't think of voting any way other than how they have been programmed by their parents/guardians (both D and R). Often, many people are voting against a candidate versus for a candidate. And then people wonder why nothing changes for the positive!

When I vote for either McKinney or Nader/Gonzales I will be voting for the one I choose. Not against somebody.

Interesting article:

Why I Can't Support Barack Obama
http://www.counterpunch.org/frank06112008.html

LOL, the Republican Party thanks you for your support

LOL, you don't seem to realize that there is very little if any difference between Rethug/Dem in today's politics.
You have been fooled into thinking voting Democrat is some how going to actually change something.
The democrats have voted for virtually every Fascist bill put in front of them.
You vote for EITHER Rethug/Dem and you are basically voting for both at the same time.

You want REAL change? then vote Green, other wise just hold your nose and go eenie meanie minnie moe.

I "support" a REAL candidate for REAL change.

Obama wont do a damn thing.

We will still be in Iraq for decades.
The patriot act, MCA, Illegal wire tapping etc will still be in place, the oil companies will still have total control.

What Obushama says and what he is going to do are 2 totally different things.
and the Bush crime family will walk away free with billions of stolen $$ from the national treasury.

The Redemthugocrat party thanks you for your support.

Nunyabiz #8...

Thank you for responding to comment #7. Gracias. I read that comment in #7 and said, "oh, why bother?!...I'm not about to change that person's mind if that's what they still think after all this time."

It's the standard typical koolaid stuff we have heard one "election" cycle after the other.

If people want to vote for this stagnant pro-war one party system which charades as two, go right ahead and vote for them, but don't expect change.

But of course, most people will expect change (in their wishful-thinking and false hope) and should Barack "Hope/Change" Obama be allowed to get in the White House---why would anyone expect the 2008 presidential "election" (if there is one) to be any different than 2000 and 2004?---then when change doesn't come from Mr Hope/Change, we will hear the whining "you have to give him tiiiiiiiiiiiiiime" that we heard all during 2007 after the useless Dems had become the majority in power in congress and had done nothing but eat GWB's ass out. And that "you have to give them tiiiiiiiiime" shit lasted until the beginning 2008 when these goddamns Dem fools finally realized that their beloved Dems weren't going to do a goddamn thing. Duh. Are they that thick? Yes, they are. Damn thick. And I don't hear that "you have to give them tiiiiiiiiiiiiiime" shit anymore. The thick Dem koolaid suckers have stopped spewing that nonsense. I guess they finally woke up at least on that one. Meanwhile, they've been chanting pro-war Hillary and Obama and expecting change. Oh, Pathetic.

Let's talk about change for a second. Today, it is being reported that Mr Hope/Change is going to possibly choose Wesley Clark, of all people, for his VP. Some military guy. And you call that change? That's like selecting Lieberman.

Change means Change. Not the same old thing.

Cynthia McKinney and Nader are both real change. Not fluff and pabulum. I don't see Obama out in front demanding impeachment of war criminals Bush/Cheney. No, Mr Hope/Change has been silent on impeachment, and you call that change? Ha! Some gullible people allow themselves to be so easily fooled and duped by these scum politicians.

Change:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change

Change does not mean staying the same or the status quo.

Here's change:

An Open Letter to John Conyers
Put Impeachment Back on the Table
By RALPH NADER
http://www.counterpunch.org/nader03272008.html

Rep. Cynthia McKinney Introduces Bush Impeachment Bill
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/16234

Gee, when Cynthia McKinney loses yet another race, will her family and supporters blame the Jews again?

Gore Vidal was also quoted in the New York Times magazine that he thinks the story about John McCain being a POW in Vietnam is a lie. Man, I am so glad I have never bought any of his books. My hard-earned discretionary income winding up in his pocket? No way.

Re: Damail's comment #10.

One might want to read this article to get a better understanding of what Damail failed to say:

Don't Blame the Jews for Cynthia McKinney's Defeat
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0825-01.htm

(Normally, I would not be linking to CommonDreams because some time ago they banned me from posting there, and then had the nerve to e-mail me asking for donations!)

Back to the topic...

My question is:

Gee, who will the Dems blame when they lose yet another race? Will they blame Nader and McKinney, rather than looking within to blame themselves? Nah, they're not about to take ownership and responsibility for their own miserable failures and Bush-enabling since 2000.

I wouldn't doubt for one second that McBush has somehow managed to "create" a lot of his war hero persona, or at least sat back and allowed he media to create it. Nothing surprises me anymore about anyone that is a politician.

Here is Gore Vidal telling it like it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuW_slx6i2s

http://www.youtube.com/w...p_Y4&feature=related

As for Cynthia McKinney she was defeated BY DIEBOLD, her election was stolen.

and one thing that we DO know about McBush is that he is exactly like Bush in almost every respect, including his rather abysmal military record and his only getting where he did solely because of his father.

http://www.huffingtonpos...questionab_b_107409.html

Comment #12:

As for Cynthia McKinney she was defeated BY DIEBOLD, her election was stolen.

Yes. Of course Diebold (the corrupt e-voting system which is saturated throughout GA) wasn't mentioned in the article I linked to earlier. It never is even mentioned in those types of articles because 1) the people who write them---including John Zogby---seem to live with the illusion that we still have fair, honest and legitimate elections, or 2) they are in Denial or 3) they think that one can't write about e-voting because that's "loony conspiracy" stuff, you know.

That's why I continue to ask the question:

Why do people think that the 2008 presidential "election" (if there is one) will be any different than the 2000 and 2004 presidential "elections?"...since these corrupt e-voting machines are all over the place now. And the Dems in congress helped push for these machines.

Vidal has no evidence to back up his idiotic claim about John McCain's POW history. Vidal does not tell it like it is; he lies. And Cynthia McKinney lost her seat because voters got tired of her antics. Nothing was stolen from her.

Damail

I don't know if Vidal lies. I don't think he'd make the claim if there were no basis for it. In fact, did he make the claim? If you're going to make it, shouldn't you be providing a link? And Cynthia McKinney very obviously had her seat stolen from her. Since you've read the commenting rules already, I'm assuming you know we don't hold with purposeful disinformation... so I'm also assuming your statement about her was just the consequence of being misinformed yourself.... Right?

Damail -

This is your second reference to Vidal making some claim about McCain not being a POW. You say he made the claim in a NYTimes piece, so it should be easy for you to show it to us.

Please do. Or your notes will be considered disinformation, as Agent 99 pointed out. I don't mind your backwards, and often incorrect comments. But I do mind if they are knowing disinfo.

So please back up your assertions, or you won't be long for this blog. Thanks!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/magazine

And if that doesn't work, try Hotjoint's link:

http://www.thehotjoints....hn-mccain-is-no-war-hero

My comment was correct.

To Damail:
BS, I read the "theHotjoints" link and it fails to support your assertion in any form:

"Gore Vidal was also quoted in the New York Times magazine that he thinks the story about John McCain being a POW in Vietnam is a lie."

You Sir are a liar! Pure and simple fabricator of falsehoods.

The quote mentioned in that link talks about being a "war hero" not "war vet". In fact, the link states clearly that Mr Vidal acknowledges McCain was a POW and served in Nam.

If someone is paying you to play stupid and lie effectively, that are getting only 1/2 their money's worth.

Here's the correct link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2...wwln-Q4-t.html?ref=books

And he's just saying he doubts it... expressing some snobbery about the West Point vs. Annapolis thing.

Maybe you don't like Vidal's sense of humor. I too doubt McCain is a war hero... not from any kind of proof, just because he does not act like one, and hasn't acted like one the whole time I've known of him. Max Cleland acts like a war hero. McCain acts as though, if he were a POW, they broke him.

You want a little clarification that he "doubts it"? Whatever. That's pretty weak. McCain's POW status is thoroughly established, and Vidal says he doubts it because of West Point vs. Annapolis snobbery? What a load.

That's an example of Gore Vidal's sense of humor? This keeps going downhill. John Mccain is a war hero. Period. I did not lie.