(Sigh) And this (from Huffington Post):-
Once they made it down to Zuccotti Park, the union leaders did indeed take to the people's mike. And so did filmmaker Michael Moore, who led the crowd in a rabble-rousing speech aimed at Wall Street.
"I love the human microphone," Moore said. "This isn't just my voice or his voice or her voice, it's all of our voices. Let's keep the movement like this. Let's not let it be corrupted by politicians."
Moore proceeded to make a series of statements about Goldman Sachs and the other Big Banks, words that would not go over well in a Senate Cloakroom.
"They are responsible for ruining millions of lives, hundreds of millions of lives," Moore said, pointing to the office towers that loom over the park. "They organized this. They took their boot and put it on the necks of the American people, and now the American people want that boot removed, now!"
"Come back President Obama," he wistfully concluded, "a lonely nation turns its eyes to you."
Winken, Blinken and Nod, along with Winnie-the-Pooh. The Three Stooges and Spanky go large on Wall Street.
The ever-observant AngryBlackLady was right.
Ron Paul is waiting in the wings — TRUST.
We used to be homeys but then you dissed me, and now I must primary you.
Back in January, a little story caught my eye that hasn’t really gotten a lot of attention: the creation of a progressive-libertarian alliance between Ron Paul and Ralph Nader. At the time, I thought (and argued) that our progressive betters would attempt to bleed liberal support from President Obama in favor of Ron Paul and Ralph Nader.
To disaffected liberals or “emoprogs” (and there are not as many of them as the Professional Left and media would have you believe), Nader is all that’s green and holy and progressive. And while Ron Paul is all that’s libertarian and batshit crazy — and holds positions that are anathema to most progressive ideals, to boot — he is staunchly anti-war, and pro-weed legalization. This, of course, appeals to so-called progressives.
And, sure enough, there they were, Ralph and Ron, joined by the Republicans' best secret weapon, that political ratfucker, Dennis Kucinich.
Earlier in the proceedings, of course, Michael Moore made an appearance. Trust me, the big man always makes an appearance at big gigs like this, the ones that are exceptional and garner a lot of media attention.
We get the picture, Mike. You're disappointed in the President. You've called him a murderer on Twitter when bin Laden met his end, and you couldn't understand why he didn't assume dictatorial powers and order the National Guard to free Troy Davis.
Who am I kidding? This prick is my age. Grow up. You're an embarrassment. I just want to say, Mike, that - apart from packing about 200 more pounds than I do, sporting facial hair and a dingle-dangle between your legs - the main difference between you and me is that I don't own shares in Boeing, Sonoco, Eli Lilly and Halliburton, and you do.
Maybe the fact that he's a shareholder in Boeing explains the reason why Moore hasn't uttered a dicky bird about the struggle to ensure that Boeing's new engine is made by union labour in Washington State, rather than have the contract relocated in right-to-work South Carolina, where union members are viewed as vicious thugs. You know who's battling Boeing for that, dontcha, Mike? Right ... the NLRB and the President whom you describe as spineless. You know, the one about whom you made that racist remark?
So, let's get this straight: Moore's protesting Wall Street, while he's a major shareholder in a company which is trying to bust a union, an oil company, an arm of Big Pharma ... and Halliburton. He's decrying capitalism, whilst hoping to make money off his latest Forrest Gump fantasy. Capitalism much?
And that brings us to the Three Muskateers - Athos Nader, Porthos Paul and Aramis Kucinich. I guess Moore's their D'Artagnan.
Matt Welch, writing in the Koch-funded Libertarian journal Reason (hock'n spit) quotes Michael Tracey's article from The American Conservative (just spit):-
Looking ahead to the 2012 presidential race, one might assume that Nader has little to be cheerful about.
Yet he says there is one candidate who sticks out—who even gives him hope: Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. [...]
"Look at the latitude," Nader says, referring to the potential for cooperation between libertarians and the left. "Military budget, foreign wars, empire, Patriot Act, corporate welfare—for starters. When you add those all up, that's a foundational convergence. Progressives should do so good."
I thought I'd bring up the subject of Ron Paul with Nader after seeing the two jointly interviewed on Fox Business Channel in January. Nader had caught me off guard when he identified an emergent left-libertarian alliance as "today's most exciting new political dynamic." It was easy to foresee objections that the left might raise: if progressives are in favor of expanding the welfare state, how well can they really get along with folks who go around quoting the likes of Hayek and Rothbard?
"That's strategic sabotage," Nader responds, sharply. "It's an intellectual indulgence....If they're on your side, and you don't compromise your positions, what do you care who they quote? Franklin Delano Roosevelt sided with Stalin against Hitler. Not to draw that analogy, I'm just saying—why did he side with Stalin? Because Stalin went along with everything FDR wanted." [...]
"Libertarians like Ron Paul are on our side on civil liberties. They're on our side against the military-industrial complex. They're on our side against Wall Street. They're on our side for investor rights. That's a foundational convergence," he exhorts. "It's not just itty-bitty stuff." [...]
There are nascent movements underway to bring disaffected progressives into Ron Paul's fold. A new organization called Blue Republican, advertised on the Huffington Post and elsewhere, urges Democrats to pledge their support for Paul. While Nader isn't willing to endorse Paul's candidacy at this point, during our interview his praise grew increasingly effusive. "Ron Paul has always been anti-corporate, anti-Federal Reserve, anti-big banks, anti-bailouts," Nader says. "I mean, they view him in the same way they view me on a lot of these issues. Did you see the latest poll? He's like two points behind Obama."
This is particularly worrying, because of the flack the President has been taking relentlessly from the getgo from disaffected, narcissistic and patently dumbassed celebrity talking heads, intent on either furthering their own agenda or following the mindless political fashion of the radical chic.
It's easy to forget that such eminent political pundits as Moore (who features on various political opinion shows), Bill Maher and Katrina vanden Heuvel trolled the country in 2000, advising all and sundry to vote for Nader, because Bush and Gore were one and the same, politically, socially and corporately. It's easy to forget that Al Gore lost Florida, eventually, by less than 500 votes, whilst Ralph Nader took 15,000.
In the end, that trio bear responsibility for lumbering us with 8 years of George Bush and the ultimate fuck-up our country's suffering now. It was no bother to those three - they're all multi-millionaires.
Now, Nader's back and - as predicted - he's teamed up with Paul. And it's been no coicidence that, since he's returned from his summer hiatus, Bill Maher hasn't let a week go by without mentioning Ron Paul in some way, shape or form. So it doesn't really surprise me that Bill's Oedipal mommy-figure, Queen Ratfucker Omnipotent of Medialand is pushing this Progressive-Libertarian alliance in her rag. She's been advocating a Progressive alliance with the Tea Party since that show began.
What's frightening is looking at Maher's Facebook page or HuffPo with all the quasi-delirious commentary about a Paul candidacy.
Truth is, Nader and Paul are working this youthful demographic, coupled with that disaffected strata of baby boomers who still think there's a last hurrah to be had in hippiedom. They emphasize the fact that Paul pushes the wedge issues of legalising drugs, ditching the Federal Reserve and bringing the troops home, knowing that these issues will satisfy this lot, and that they'll never think to challenge Paul's other views, which are distinctly distasteful.
So, assuming a Paul candidacy and subsequent victory, these "Progressives" will be OK with seeing healthcare dismantled, Social Security and Medicare scrapped, FEMA and the Department of Education scuttled, and the Civil Rights Act repealed? Ron Paul's OK with people being able to buy and use heroin; he just doesn't want a woman to have control over her reproductive life. He doesn't believe in Social Security, and he definitely isn't a fan of Medicare - remember that both Paul and his son voted against the Ryan Budget because it wasn't stringent enough. His answer to people being caught up in natural disasters is to have insurance, and he definitely thinks that the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional. In case people aren't aware, when Ron Paul cites "property rights" being violated, he's speaking the language of slave-owners in the ante-Bellum South.
And, of course, there's the little matter of Stormfront endorsing him.
As for the third wheel in the cog, Kucinich, he's just crossed the border from being one of the most vocal, yet ineffectual, members of Congress into the land of total fame whoredom. Allegedly, he's being forced into primarying Rep Marcy Kaptur, an old-style labour Democrat who'd naturally sympathise with the union element and the grassroots movement spurring Occupy Wall Street; but the decision to primary Congresswoman Kaptur came only after a fruitless travail in Washington state, during the Congressional summer hiatus. Instead of using the time to re-connect with his district, while it still exists, via town halls, Kucinich and his trophy child-bride trekked through Washington in search of that elusive safe Democratic seat in Progressive Paradise, whose constituents would be honoured at having such a big name
Only when he got shown the door, did Kucinich decide it was safer to primary Marcy Kaptur, who's taking on half his district, than to actually run against the Republican who's taking the other half.
He's a brave man, that Dennis; and people call the President "spineless."
Ron Paul's playing clever with the crave Kucinich by saying a President Paul would have Dennis in his Cabinet, as Secretary in the "Department of Peace." Well, I kinda sorta guess that means Dennis would be Ron's Secretary of State, because the State Department is actually the "Department of Peace," diplomacy being the art of avoiding conflict.
So, I'm thinking, maybe these Progressives, allying themselves with Libertarians, are OK with a high-ranking government official who - if he isn't actually pallin' around with terrorists, he sure as hell is pallin' around with people who fund them.
First, he's caught talking with officials of the Gaddafi government during the recent conflict, as part of his effort to sue the President for illegal warfare - in the Federal courts, if not securing articles of impeachment.
Then, there was that little matter of Dennis's visit to Syria and his very public gesture of kissing Assad's assad with these sweet words:-
"President al-Assad is highly loved and appreciated by the Syrians," said Kucinich, voicing his belief that people in Syria are seeking a real change which is up to them.
"What I saw in Syria in terms of the open discussion for change demanded by the people and the desire for national dialogue is a very positive thing," said the U.S. official, adding "Syria has gone through hard times…However, I believe there is a very strong desire for unity and democratic change, and the difficulties Syria has faced over the past few months can be overcome."
Remind me again just how many protestors have been killed by that beloved Mr Assad since Dennis's visit?
The fact that both Kucinich and Ron Paul are idealogues as much as Nader is shouldn't be lost on people. Nader isn't out for what is best for the citizens of this country. He isn't even out for this country. He's out for Nader and his own enormous ego.
Ron Paul's view of government's accountability to its citizens would make Grover Norquist look liberal.
And Kucinich's ego would rival both of the others and Michael Moore's girth.
Did you ever stop and wonder why at least three of these usual suspects - Kucinich, Nader and Moore - rarely show up where the majority of their listeningn audience are real bona fide, critically thinking adults?
There's a reason.
I happen to think Ron Paul is the dark horse amongst the field of GOP Presidential candidates left standing. I know Mitt Romney's in the lead at the moment, but it's still early days; and once the real caucuses and primaries get underway, it's anyone's game. Paul could do as well rural Iowa as in New Hampshire, and certainly, he would do well in the South.
No one planned for John McCain to get the nod in 2008, so Paul could easily get the nomination; and with so many of the Progressive demographic demonstrating a singular inability to think critically, coupled with their spoiled-child disappointment in President Obama being unable to provide them with political unicorns in less than one term, there is a very real possibility of a President Paul being inaugurated in 2013.
But, hey ... Michael Moore will be all right.
Be careful what you wish for ... These are NOT three wise men.