My friend Jonathan McIntosh has produced a new video, perhaps his finest work I’ve seen to date, remixing the presidential debates with clips from “So You Think You Can Dance?”

The remix is called “So You Think You Can Be President?” I recommend it to everyone who wants a real critique (not to mention eight minutes of laughs) of Obama and McCain’s frighteningly similar positions on energy issues and increasing attacks against the Afghan people. Check it out!

Despite the fact that the bailout package was utterly insufficient to deal with the crisis we face and the Democratic Party’s history should lead to no surprises about where the Party’s real interests lie, the public discussion about the failure of the Bailout Vote to pass is quite over the top.
Huffington Post reports:

“House Republican Leader John Boehner said, “I do believe that we could have gotten there today, had it not been for this partisan speech that Speaker [Pelosi] gave on the floor of the House. I mean, we were — we put everything we had into getting the votes to get there today, but the Speaker had to give a partisan voice that poisoned our conference, caused a number of members who we thought we could get to go south.”"

So what did Nancy Pelosi say exactly?  What was so “out of line” that caused the GOP to vote “no” because their feelings got hurt? Well she commented that:

“Today we will act to avert this crisis, but informed by our experience of the past eight years with the failed economic leadership … We choose a different path. In the new year, with a new Congress and a new president, we will break free with a failed past and take America in a new direction to a better future.”

“It is a number that is staggering, but tells us only the costs of the Bush Administration’s failed economic policies-policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system.”

People do seem to be responding to the absurdity of the GOP’s claim - that GOP politicians got their feelings hurt and as such, risked the entire market collapsing by voting no - but right from the beginning the Democratic Party, lead by the Congressional leaders and Senator Obama, responded to McCain’s call for “bipartisan efforts” in a positive manner. Any party with the slightest hint of liberal politics would called the GOP out on their shit: the administration, corporations, and individuals who caused this mess have no right to claim the higher ground. They created the crisis - they don’t get to solve it - nor attack those who attempt to do so. And yes, partisan attacks in a time of fundamental crisis are very appropriate. Those who cause crises should face the public spotlight when they occur.

These comments are less about the actual bailout package, and much more about how those interested in genuine freedom should point out both the hypocrisy of the GOP’s stance and the unwillingness of the Democrats to stand up for what they call “Main Street”. Until they start foreclosing the war, the dirty energy economy, and poverty, the Democratic Party has no right to talk about “Main Street”.

She also went on, of course, to say that:

“Democrats believe in the free market, which can and does create jobs, wealth, and capital, but left to its own devices it has created chaos.”

Thankfully they actually admit what the free market does. It makes advocating opposition to capitalism and the presentation of democratic alternatives all the easier.

“In the long run, Americans have good reason to be confident in our economic strength. Despite corrections in the marketplace and instances of abuse, democratic [sic] capitalism is the best system ever devised.” - George W. Bush, September 25, 2008

“The fundamentals of the economy are strong.” - John McCain, September 15, 2008

You’ll hear lots of politicians, CEO’s, and media pundits using similar language in the days ahead. The economy is “strong”. capitalism is the “best system possible.” Or, perhaps more bluntly, they’ll say what they really mean: there is no alternative.

Fundamental crises like these, where the government has to step in to prevent the market system from literally collapsing and sending us into a depression, are proof enough for the average onlooker that market capitalism is a deeply flawed and profoundly undemocratic system.

Right-wing politicians like Bush and McCain, who claim to favor “small government”, have been exposed for who they really are. While social programs have been cut over the last four years, our national debt has skyrocketed to nearly  $11 trillion dollars. Small government? Ha! While bipartisan politicians and Wall Street CEO’s rob taxpayers of money to fund an unpopular regional war in the Middle East and bailout criminal corporate robber barons, millions of Americans can’t afford to travel to work, buy food, or pay their rents and mortgage.

While the climate crisis is spiraling out of control, with the north pole becoming an island - detached from all surrounding continents - for the first time in 50,000 years, the Washington-Wall Street racket is spending $3 trillion dollars - and killing millions of people - on a fossil fuel drilling expedition in Iraq.

McCain and Obama’s answer to the crisis? Slightly different programmatic positions, but McCain articulated their commonality best: “Drill Baby, Drill.” The gas prices issue leads to their common (non-)solution: “energy independence”. What’s the term really mean? Read: having a backup plan should imperialist endeavors in the Middle East fail. While leaders like former Vice President Gore are calling for 100% clean energy by 2019, advocating young people utilize civil disobedience to achieve it, Senator Obama - the Democratic Party candidate for President - advocates “energy independence” by 2020. Climate change is a global crisis and should not be turned into sell-out slogans to pick up votes and gain the presidency. The two presidential candidates should grow a spine and take a real stance on the issue. Unfortunately the American people will have to force them to do so.

So why exactly are Bush and McCain bringing out the “there is no alternative” (TINA) argument when both the economy and climate are in deep crisis? Hmmm. I wonder. What we have are two crises that exist, largely due to the chaotic nature of market economics. Costs of production and consumption on humans and the environment aren’t figured into market transactions. The government is forced to use hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money to bailout corporations that have caused the economic spiral towards recession.

So why all the talk about “capitalism being the best system ever devised”? Its simple, because none of these problems would exist in a democratic economy. Go figure.

This is priceless! Bush says he’s endorsing McCain because he thinks McCain won’t change anything! Don’t worry, McCain and Bush are happy to bring their message to America! What would a McCain presidency be? Four more years! Four more years!

Check out this YouTube video about John McCain! Points out more of McCain’s conservative policies, including him saying that a 100 year occupation of Iraq would be “fine by me”.

McCain, possibly the future Republican Party nominee says that it would “be fine” with him if the U.S. were to continue to occupy Iraq for 100 years. When interviewed later about the comments, McCain stood firm, saying that he was willing to stay in Iraq however long it took, even “1,000 years”, or “1,000,000 years”. The Government is right that the United States can “win” in Iraq. But the left must shift the debate. Of course the Government can “win” in Iraq. The question isn’t can the United States Government “win”. The question is what does “winning” mean.

Does “winning” mean leveling the entire country? Killing all its inhabitants? Does “winning” mean 10,000 American troop deaths? Does it mean 20,000 American troop deaths? Does it mean 50,000 American troop deaths? Does “winning” mean breaking more international laws, treaties and conventions? Does “winning” mean making us less respected and trusted in the world? Does “winning” mean no money for healthcare, none for social security, none money for education or jobs or programs of social uplift? Does “winning” in Iraq, means the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast need to lose? Does it mean more people to hating us? Does it mean more Abu Ghraibs and Guantanamo Bays; more Fallujahs and Hadithas; more wiretaps and deportations? Does it mean more fear and hate; more violence and more ignorance?

Yes, the Government can “win” at whatever it wishes - its has the most powerful, expensive military in the history of the world. The question of whether the Government can “win” in Iraq is an absurdity. What we should be asking is “what are we doing to Iraq, to Iraqis, to our soldiers, to our veterans, and to our country?” and, most importantly, “why are we there in the first place?”

These questions all have simple answers. All that requires is that we look at the evidence right in front of our noses. We are occupying Iraq so that United States corporations can control the flow of oil from their oil fields. Plain and simple. While rich men get richer, the rest of us deal with pain, death, and poverty.

John McCain for President?

I think not.