DECEMBER 2, 2011 5:16AM

The Justice Party, Rocky Anderson & OWS

Rate: 10 Flag


On Wednesday night, November 30th, I saw Rocky Anderson on Rachel Maddow’s show where he presented his thoughts about running for president representing a newly formed political party, the Justice Party.  You can find a video clip of his appearance here.  He appears at approximately 4:40 into the clip. 

Reported in the Salt Lake City Political Buzz Examiner: 

Anderson says he will reach out through social media with an agenda he believes the American people support. That agenda includes: Tax the rich and corporations; end the wars, bring troops home, and cut military spending; strengthen Social Security and Medicare; end corporate welfare and get money out of politics; transition to a clean energy economy, raise wages, create jobs and protect worker rights.

Anderson said in an interview Wednesday on KSL’s Doug Wright Show, “We’ve been voting as a nation against our own interests year after year. Most Americans - whether they consider themselves on the right, left, center, whatever - understand that their interests have been undermined by these folks in Washington, both in the White House and in Congress, who are acting as if they’re on retainer with their largest campaign contributors rather than doing what’s in the public’s interest.” Anderson is talking about limiting contributions to the Justice Party to $100 per election. 

During his appearance on Rachel Maddow, Anderson said, “What we’ve seen from the Democratic and Republican parties, where they’ve brought this country is absolutely tragic.”  He says we are in a new “Gilded Age” and we are seeing the undermining of the very core of our national values. 

He goes on to say one of the main platform agendas would be to get the corrupting influence of “corporate and other concentrated wealth” out of our political system, also adding, “Congress and the White House have been conducting themselves as if they are on retainer with Wall Street.” 

Anderson addresses a number of other concerns that resulted from the Bush/Cheney regime and continued under Obama or have not been properly addressed by the current administration and Congress.  Among those concerns are what kind of country we decide to be with regard to how we address climate change, requiring accountability of war criminals, which led him to what he labeled our “two-tiered system of justice” that favors certain groups of criminals while disadvantaging others and our “two-tier economy”. 

Anderson offers an example of one man who is serving 55 years in prison for 3 counts of selling marijuana while those who committed numerous felonies under the Bush administration were never prosecuted and the FISA amendments crafted in 2006 and finally passed in 2008 granted retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies that committed felonies in collusion with the Bush/Cheney regime.

He also states that Obama, as a Senator, had promised that he would not support retroactive immunity for those telecommunications companies that had violated our laws and would filibuster any bill promoting such, and then betrayed that promise and voted for retroactive immunity and has made no effort whatsoever to hold American war criminals accountable for their crimes.  Unfortunately, at this point Obama can only be seen as an accomplice in those crimes. 

Anderson also addresses the human rights abuses that are becoming commonplace and acceptable in the American discourse.  Topics that desperately need to be addressed, and are not, were front and center in Anderson’s presentation.  As this is just beginning, there is not a lot of information online about it yet.  I hope Anderson and the Justice Party can make a legitimate run and initiate the kinds of change America needs; I think we can rest assured that neither the Democratic Party, nor the Republican Party, will.

While I think the chances of Anderson actually winning the presidency may be remote, I think his presence in the campaign would create much the same dynamic as OWS has created, bringing to the forefront the most issues the current batch of politicians are ignoring.  And just maybe, in the next year, enough people might awaken to the prospects offered by such a candidate as Rocky Anderson and the Justice Party. 

If Rocky runs, he’ll have my vote, for it’s clear that continuing down our current path leads to nowhere.  Before we can achieve the changes we need, we must correct the dysfunctional nature of the system by which we implement those changes. 

flag upsidedown 


Your tags:


Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:


Type your comment below:
I am just baffled by those who would insist on sending Obama, or most of the current batch of Democrats, back to office expecting anything different than we've had for so long.
You gotta do what you think is right…and I respect that. But, respectfully as possible, I think you have not thought this through completely, Rick.

I do not care if you (universal “you”) think that Barack Obama is the anti-Christ, the federal judicial appointments he will make will impact much, much more positively on the needed changes cited in this thread than any made by the Republican nominee, should he/she win. MUCH, MUCH MORE POSITIVE!!! In face, I would argue that the appointments made by ANY Republican president will have a NEGATIVE impact on that effort.

A vote for someone like Anderson, should he run, (or any Nader wanna-be) will be a vote for the Republican.

As far as I am concerned, Rick, a vote for Anderson would be a vote against “our own interests” that would pale the current votes being cast against our interests.

The economy will suck in 2012; it probably will suck for another decade; a resurrected FDR will not turn our country appreciably toward the left…and we have got to be satisfied with getting as best we can out of a truly lousy hand we have been dealt. Our motto has to be: Keep our eyes on the prize…we are in this for the long run, not the short.


The only reason a vote for Anderson might be detrimental is that too many people are afraid to vote FOR our best interest you. Your fear paralyzes you so that instead of recognizing that what Anderson says is true and that if we put him in office we might actually start to turn things around, you can't see past the indoctrinated belief that there can only be two parties. If everyone who might vote for Obama votes instead for Anderson, then we move forward.

You suggest that a vote for Obama is a vote against Republicans. I see no value in such a narrow view, especially when Obama has been, in effect, little other than a Republican in major policy issues. The idea that we should elect a Republican to vote against Republicans is a non sequitur; a conclusion that does not follow logically from the evidence.

You are the one who has not thought this through completely. You are mired in the past, in a two-party perspective that continues to poison our society, slowly destroying the last vestiges of the great potential this country once held, and could hold again, if we don't wait too long to turn it around.

I appreciate your passion, but I wish you could direct it in a more progressive, creative manner than settling for the status quo.
Okay, Rick.

Don't settle for the "status quo."

You vote for Anderson.

We'll see how that changes things.

If you think the motivation behind what I wrote in response to your post is a function of my "fearing" to vote for our best interests, then trying to reason with you is not worthwhile. You have closed your mind in order to come to that kind of reasoning.

A closed mind is one that can't see past what is right in front of it. Change requires taking a different course. Obama isn't that; he's proven that beyond any doubt.
Good on you!!!

At last...! someone who can see past the end of his nose. Anyone with half a brain should be able to look far enough into the future to see that electing Republicans or Republicans Light is not in the best long term interests of the country.

It is true that in the short term the nation might be a wee bit better off with the Republican Light incumbent but that still leaves the nation short of a real alternative to.......wait for it.......Republicans!!

It is those who, like yourself, can see a tad further ahead who realize that if this generation of voters will suffer through the development years of a new party, that might - might - have the interests of the people at heart, our children and grandchildren could have a genuine alternative to vote for with a realistic chance of gaining a congressional majority and the presidency.

Those who will 'suffer through' now, with a 'stiff upper lip' will be the real heroes of American politics. That long, hard road to the development of such a third party will, as evidenced by the comment by Sappy Appy, NOT be undertaken by those so shortsighted as to stamp their little feet and go into a petty tantrum to put their own "I want it all NOW" agenda ahead of the best interests of future generations.

I'll have to take some time later yet today for the video clip, but thanks for the article. I'm not familiar with Rocky Anderson.

Sheesh. Is it really down to this now? We're hoping to be saved by a guy named Rocky?

Strange times.
I'm grateful to see this. I'm a former Marine and I know when I'm being attacked. The two parties have attacked the people and there's no winning in waiting for the enemy to give you back your ground.

This is a good time because both parties are weak. They trot out endless status quo candidates and people must hold their noses to choose from the same old garbage. I'm tired of playing an endless defensive, no one is coming to save us.

I thought the chances of Obama winning were remote but I voted for him. I'm old enough to know that only a fool thinks they can accurately predict the future. I liked this to facebook, hopefully word will spread. Thank you.
A closed mind is one that can't see past what is right in front of it. Change requires taking a different course. Obama isn't that; he's proven that beyond any doubt.

Well...then continue to work to undermine him...and to defeat him next November. We'll definitely see a "different course" if someone like Perry or Gingrich gets in. I hope you will be happy with the change.
You sicken me. Our political system is set up in such a way that we have two choices, and for you and this "Rocky" character to suggest we be offered a third choice is simply undemocratic, or unDemocratic, or something.
Didn't your mother ever tell you that when you push your cheek out so far with your tongue, one day it will freeze like that?


Yes, this is the best opportunity for a 3rd party I’ve seen in my lifetime. And the slight difference we might see with Republican Light versus Republican is clearly not worth the vote, as evidenced by the past 3 years. A negative is still a negative, and the only way to change it is to actually change it. Of course, we have to recognize that any president is still just one man, and Congress is where the biggest problem lies.


I could go for “President Rocky”. Check out his segment of the video, it’s pretty short and you can fast forward to the point where he appears.


Thanks for “liking” this to facebook; I noticed that my last post garnered many ‘likes’ despite being largely ignored by OS. As Anderson has indicated, he will be relying largely on “social media” to spread his message.

“…there's no winning in waiting for the enemy to give you back your ground.”

You present such a perfect way to address the mindset of people who insist that our only path is the status quo. When the status quo is a losing proposition, one must find another path, even if it is not a perfectly smooth path to follow. I think the majority of Americans are cowards when they vote and that’s why we can’t move past the problems we face; their fear prevents them from trying something new, it paralyzes them, and so we continue to lose.


The point is, regardless of who gets in from the two major parties, nothing will be all that different. If Obama has accomplished anything, perhaps his most notable achievement is the clear revelation of that truth.


I know it’s treasonous of Rocky and me. I have plans to change my name and disappear in the underground, now.
It would be nice to have a 3rd party run that promoted a candidate who would be at least a dollar's difference instead of the measly dime the Democrats offer. The problem with Rocky's interview is he hits on legal justice more than social, and it's the economy, stupid, that motivates most voters.

I'd rather see a push, at least in this cycle, towards running independent or Democratic candidates for Congress, based on the idea of economic justice/functionality, as a district-by-district effort would produce better results. Rocky will be frozen out of the debates anyway.

I see you have attracted the OS resident expert on his own political delusions. Now you'll be responsible if Obama loses, as certainly your thoughts will infect, by Apisa osmosis, the vast swath of voters who pay little attention to politics. That'll show you! Is this what you want? To be responsible for more corporate SC justices? Shame, Rick, shame!

No wonder Obama acts as if he doesn't give a flyin' crap about what happens to the middle class. He can always blame you. At least now we know the source of America's decline.
I've never heard of Rocky Anderson, but I'd love to see a genuine third-party alternative to our current two choices, about which the best that can be said is that one choice is marginally less bad than the other. Sadly (and this is also true of key issues like campaign finance reform and the control of congress by lobbyists), 'til the American electorate decides to make itself an adult participant in the political process, there is little chance of that happening. "But Daddy, it's just so haaaaard participating in a functioning democracy, you have to be all involved and learn all this boring information and stuff and I'd rather be watching reality TV, sniffle, sniff."
[r] Mr. Anderson certainly has presidential bearing. I remember reading about the calls for a "Justice Party" a serious while ago. It even had that name applied to it back then. Good on it and on Rocky Anderson.

I joined the Green Party after seeing Obama's real stripes. His pass on doing anything about accountability for the torture program brought up so much cognitive dissonance in me it made me literally sick and was a tipping point. I began wearing a black arm band every day to mourn the situation of having a sell out and a liar in the White House and continuing on in a captured country, a military and economic monster terrorist country. And to mourn a citizen majority that decided not to notice very seriously. Numb out their consciences.

The Green Party stands for decency and sanity. It has been around for a good long while, and is an international coalition which is what this globe truly needs, an organizing network for international decency. Yes, a proud to be decent and fight for decency party.

I am at a loss why other people waking up and recognizing the grotesque corruption of both of our major parties did not flock to the Green Party which was was my seemingly natural impulse. The members of the Green Party are serious. They are activists. They have been holding the lamp of truth and decency for ages now.

Many of the Green Party of NYC have spoken out strongly about the nightmare oppression of the Palestinians by Israel. A little too much hardcore decency which is controversial and a deal breaker apparently it would seem for many in America who would prefer not to face down that inconvenient but surreal truth and stirs up the cronyism and tribalism and AIPAC-lock on America. So be it.

The Green Party has third party candidates now for president. I wonder if Rachel will be expansive enough to invite them on? I am guessing not, but you never know. OWS is exciting and it is young. The Green Party and the youth of America? Can they get it together I wonder in a big way? Can the youth movement get behind the Justice Party? And beyond that, the energetic young, can the rest of the citizenry break away from a status quo that is poisoning them FINALLY? Change people can believe in? Obama's mantra. To make people choose change they literally have to be on fire it would seem.

I wonder if before the 2012 election the Green and Justice Party could ACTIVELY coalition with each other. And any other third party movements. That is how it can be done.

Anyway, your blog brings hope or at least a cautious optimism! Thanks.

I lived in Utah while Rocky Anderson was Mayor. He served two terms. He is definitely a legal crusader, and there may be a little (tiny) buzz here, but it won't go anywhere. He'd be unelectable in Utah for Senate, which is really too bad, as he would be an outstanding Senator. It he gets people talking, though, it will be a good thing.
Should have clarified that Anderson was Mayor of SLC...
wisdom from glenn greenwald:

"After Obama’s election, the Democratic Party controlled the White House, the Senate and the House for the first two years, and the White House and Senate for the ten months after that. During this time, unemployment and home foreclosures were painfully high, while Wall Street and corporate profits exploded, along with income inequality. In July, 2009, The New York Times dubbed JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon “Obama’s favorite banker” because of his close relationship with, and heavy influence on, leading Democrats, including the President. In February, 2010, President Obama defended Dimon’s $17 million bonus and the $9 million bonus to Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein — both of whose firms received substantial taxpayer bailouts — as fair and reasonable.

"The key Senate fundraiser for the Party is Chuck Schumer, whom the New York Times profiled — in an article headlined “Champion of Wall Street Reaps the Benefits” — as someone who repeatedly supported “measures now blamed for contributing to the financial crisis” and who “took other steps to protect industry players from government oversight and tougher rules” and thus “became a magnet for campaign donations from wealthy industry executives, including Jamie Dimon, now the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase; John J. Mack, the chief executive at Morgan Stanley; and Charles O. Prince III, the former chief executive of Citigroup.” That servitude to Wall Street is what consolidated Schumer’s power in the Party:

"As a result, [Schumer] has collected over his career more in campaign contributions from the securities and investment industry than any of his peers in Congress, with the exception of Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts . . . In the last two-year election cycle, he helped raise more than $120 million for the Democrats’ Senate campaign committee, drawing nearly four times as much money from Wall Street as the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Donors often mention his “pro-business message” and record of addressing their concerns.

"Upon being inaugurated, Obama empowered as his top economic adviser Larry Summers, who had “collected roughly $5.2 million in compensation from hedge fund D.E. Shaw over the [prior] year and was paid more than $2.7 million in speaking fees by several troubled Wall Street firms and other organizations,” including a fee of $135,000 for a single day of speaking at Goldman, Sachs, and who also led the orgy of Wall Street deregulation in the 1990s. Obama installed as Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, whom the New York Times explained had “forged unusually close relationships with executives of Wall Street’s giant financial institutions.”

"When Obama chose him, Geithner had just participated in a secret meeting along with Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, at which it was decided that a bankrupt AIG would be saved and then — with taxpayer money — would pay Goldman every penny owed to it. Summers, in February, 2009, defended gaudy AIG bonuses as compelled by “the rule of law” even after the administration forced auto union workers to take sizable cuts in their contractually guaranteed pay.

"As his Chief of Staff at Treasury, Geithner chose Mark Patterson, the former top lobbyist for Goldman, Sachs. Goldman replaced Patterson with Michael Paese, who at the time was the top staffer to Democratic Rep. Barney Frank in his capacity as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, which regulates Wall Street. Obama’s choice to oversee America’s futures markets was Gary Gensler, a former Goldman Sachs executive who, during the 1990s, was known for his shockingly lax enforcement of regulations governing derivative products. Obama re-appointed Bush’s Fed Chair Ben Bernanke, and named CEO of GE Jeffery Immelt to head his panel of jobs advisers, along with several other job-cutting corporate executives.

"When Rahm Emanuel — who had made $16 million in three years as an investment banker after leaving the Clinton White House — left as Obama’s Chief of Staff to run for Mayor of Chicago, Obama chose as his replacement Bill Daley, who at the time was serving as JP Morgan’s Midwest Chairman and a director of Boeing. Shortly after Obama’s star director of Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, left the administration, he became a top executive at Citigroup. The DCCC, recently headed by Emanuel and now feigning support for the protests, is characterized by little other than a strategy of supporting corporatist, Wall-Street-revering “Blue Dog” Democrats as a way of consolidating power.

"One of the most significant aspects of the Obama administration is the lack of criminal prosecutions for leading Wall Street executives for the 2008 financial crisis. Obama recently opined — even while there are supposedly ongoing DOJ investigations — that Wall Street’s corruption was, in general, not illegal. The New York Times recently reported that top Obama officials are heavily pressuring New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to join a woefully inadequate settlement agreement that would end all investigations and litigations against Wall Street firms for pervasive mortgage fraud.

"Given these facts, does the Center for American Progress really believe that the protest movement named OccupyWallStreet was begun — and that people are being arrested and pepper-sprayed and ready to endure harsh winters and marching to Jamie Dimon’s house — in order to devote themselves to ensuring that these people remain in power? Does CAP and the DCCC really believe that most of the protesters are motivated — or can be motivated — to turn themselves into a get-out-the-vote machine for Obama’s re-election and the empowerment of Chuck Schumer and the Democratic Party? Obviously, if when the GOP nominates some crony capitalist like Rick Perry or eager Wall Street servant like Mitt Romney, few if any of the protesters will or should support them, nor can it be denied that the GOP in its current incarnation is steadfastly devoted to a pro-Wall-Street, corporatist agenda. But it also seems to me quite delusional to think that you’re going to exploit this protest as a way “to mobilize protesters in get-out-the-vote drives for 2012″ on behalf of the Democratic Party that I just documented."

Presumably, people who are out protesting and getting arrested are politically astute enough to be aware of some, probably most, of these facts. A rejuvenated outburst of “populist rhetoric” from Obama — a re-reading of the 2008 Change script — just as election season is heating up and Obama again needs progressive enthusiasm to remain in power seems quite unlikely to make people forget all of this.

How can Obama and the pimped out Dems look us in the face, or keep a straight face, saying they are on the side of the 99 percenters?????? Geeeeeezzzzzzzz.
Good grief! It took me a day and a half just to sign on!


Like you, I believe Congress is really a more pressing problem, as I’ve said on many occasions. The Blue Dogs, of which Obama is one, are a major destructive force that has successfully infiltrated and undermined any good that might be left in the Democratic Party and the Republicans, …well, it’s a bit mystifying how insane they’ve become. That is at least as difficult a task as electing a president that has some genuineness in agenda, but I think given that the task of fixing Congress is as a “district-by-district” solution, it may be even more difficult. Regardless, I don’t see an either-or situation here; both approached are needed. It’s impossible to know with full certainty, but I think that, had Obama been stronger in demanding certain things from his party affiliates, much more could have been accomplished while a majority was available to them.

I also agree that we need to hear more about economic issues from Anderson, and I think he understands that, too. Anderson did touch on those near the end of his segment. I think there were at least a couple reasons he didn’t spend more time on them. One reason was the time limit; his segment was about 5 minutes and he had more than 5 minutes worth of topics to present; another reason was the specific question Rachel asked him, which was how the “Justice Party” differs from the other parties.

In answering that question, he focused on issues that the other candidates are ignoring, which happen to be mostly legal issues and the problems stemming from the repeal of necessary banking regulation and the lawlessness ushered in by the Bush/Cheney regime and continued by the Obama administration, all of which ultimately leads to the societal economic issues created by unethical, lawless banksters and the politicians that support them. I had a sense that he is addressing the source of these problems instead of just paying lip-service like the other candidates are, and will continue, doing. I thought Anderson did a fairly good job of touching on many “differences” in such a short amount of time. And ultimately, the other candidates are, as a result of OWS, paying lip-service to the economy, even though we know they will do nothing to correct the source of the problems because those candidates ARE the problem, due to being “on retainer” to their corporate masters, as Anderson indicated.

And, yes, the idea that I, or anyone who criticizes Obama, should be blamed for failures that land squarely on Obama is ludicrous beyond all logical reasonableness; it’s just truly baffling.

Hi, nana,

Yep, I think the fact that so many simply refuse to engage, refuse to spend time familiarizing themselves with facts, is definitely a major problem. Unfortunately, one of the supposed main sources for that information has become “privatized” and based on nothing more than entertainment and selling products for the corporations that own them that getting good information has become increasingly difficult, which is compounded by the fact that making a living has become increasingly difficult; the exact game plan of the wealthier elitists and capitalists.

Along with those two aspects of their agenda, is also the reduction of good education that leads young minds to more logical thinking that allows for connecting dots to arrive at clearer understandings. Making it easier to indoctrinate those minds into patterns of belief, from which it then becomes virtually impossible for them to break free. We see, now, a more concerted and blatant effort to begin deconstructing education, rather than strengthen it, so that we move ever closer to that semi-comical truth of a movie known as “Idiocracy”.


RE: the Green Party; While the Green Party definitely pursues worthy issues, I think their approach has mostly been to use local elections to promote change, although, I admit to not having a solid grasp on the party platform. I think promoting change from a local level is a solid approach. As noted by Paul above, a push for better congressional representatives on a “district-by-district” basis would be effective, but it doesn’t seem to have happened, so far.

Because Anderson spoke specifically about making systemic changes as a major platform agenda, I find the Justice Party is taking the approach that makes most sense to me; before we can tackle some of the major issues confronting us, we must first correct the system by which we address those issues. It seems to me that, as you suggest, a sort of coalition might be formed between the Justice Party, the Green Party, and perhaps others, to promote certain candidates on various levels as Paul has suggested.

You ask the pertinent question: “…can the rest of the citizenry break away from a status quo that is poisoning them FINALLY?”

Today, I don’t feel very optimistic about an answer to that question, but at least there seems to be more and more movement in that direction.

And, yes, it is baffling as to how the current Dems keep a straight face.


I share your pessimism about the immediate success of the Justice Party. The only optimism I gain from it is that it indicates the societal shift that is occurring away from the corrupt two-party system, a shift that has been long in coming, but which seems to be gathering strength at a much faster pace, now. This is how such things have occurred historically; first a whimper, then a growl, then a howl, and finally a break-through. As I said in one my comments above, if Obama has accomplished anything, it is that he has revealed, beyond all doubt, the pathetic and corrupt nature of our current government and the system by which we “hire” these MIS-representatives. It’s been a long time since we’ve seen so much attention directed at that problem.
Is he unbelievably narcissistic, or batshit crazy?

Formerly a member of the Democratic Party, Anderson expressed his disappointment with that party in 2011, stating "the Constitution has been eviscerated while Democrats have stood by with nary a whimper. It is a gutless, unprincipled party, bought and paid for by the same interests that buy and pay for the Republican Party."

Thus has it always been. It was a capitalist party when you were running under its banner. Nothing has changed.

Yes, Rocky, you're right: The United States is a plutocracy / kleptocracy. No doubt about it. And your answer to that problem is to....start your own party and run for president. WhatEVER.

You have to wonder what the hell is wrong with the man.

I think your comment is missing the point; "...the Constitution has been eviscerated while Democrats have stood by with nary a whimper" refers to what occurred under the Bush/Cheney regime and the facilitation by the Dems of those illegal acts. There is nothing "crazy" about what Anderson has stated.

Having said that, Anderson's focus on the particular issues that all other candidates are ignoring is a good thing and much needed. The Democrat Party has deteriorated exponentially in recent years, along with Republicans who have led the way in that deterioration.

Thanks for your input.
Just as we so often do on religion, we'll have to agree to disagree about politics. Andersen, like Nader before him, can have only one possible effect if he runs, and that is to draw off just enough votes from Obama to throw the election to whichever pathetic loser emerges from the Republican freak show.

Sorry, but that's reality, and given the current state of politics, we can ill-afford such a Pyrrhic "victory" for the Liberal cause. As long as the two-party system rules the roost -- and tell me the last time a third-party candidate won the Presidency? -- we have to deal with what is, not what we wish was.

I'm glad you finally stopped by. I understand your perspective, so I'm not sure how much we disagree, but we are clearly looking at different aspects. My question would be, given your statement: "How do you foresee us ever creating the changes we need if we continue repeating the same failures?"

I guess I'm just wondering what we might achieve if we try different failures for a change.
Rick, you directed a comment toward Tom: My question would be, given your statement: "How do you foresee us ever creating the changes we need if we continue repeating the same failures?"

I guess I'm just wondering what we might achieve if we try different failures for a change.

That “wondering” is one of the more interesting items to contemplate here, Rick.

As I see it, the conservatives have managed to turn the entire country significantly toward the right by the simple expediency of supporting the candidate of the Republican Party no matter what…even marginally stupid and/or evil candidates of the right get unqualified support. (Think Dan Quayle; George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, the people on stage at Republican Debates)

The Republicans can count on that…the conservative blow-hards can count on that. This despite the fact that a majority of the people who are moving toward the right…are people voting against their own interests—steadying the hand of politicians trying to cut their throats.

The liberals use a different tactic…they piss on their candidates and rationalize the insult by suggesting they have been hoodwinked by a traitor and charlatan. Unless they get exactly what they want (often requiring the candidate to do the impossible, because liberal expectations often are unrealistic), the liberals throw a tantrum—essentially kicking their heels against the floor and holding their breath until they turn blue. Liberals, in their snits, often work against their candidates—even when they realize such work aids and abets “the enemy.” Liberal candidates cannot count on their base…and have to court the center—even the part of the center on the right side of the line.

Instead of “trying to achieve a different failure for a change” (instead of trying for failure at all), Rick…why don’t you liberals try emulating a tactic with a proven track record? Why not say you are going TO SUPPORT the candidate of the Democratic Party NO MATTER WHAT? Why not accept what can be achieved right now—rather than “wanting” the unachievable and pissing and moaning when it doesn’t come?

Hate to tell you this, but right now, simply stopping the national moves rightward would be a significant achievement! Even slowing it down a bit would be reasonable.


And thinking "third party" is self-immolation.
iconoclast: A person who attacks traditional instituions as being based on error.

Frank Apisa: Support the Democratic party no matter what.

There are so many fallacies in your comment, that I will just point to the primary, overriding fallacy.

You write, “Rick…why don’t you liberals try emulating a tactic with a proven track record? Why not say you are going TO SUPPORT the candidate of the Democratic Party NO MATTER WHAT?”

That “tactic with a proven track record” is precisely what got into the mess we're in now. That's its proven track record.

You have summed it up quite nicely.


I'll ignore the silly accusation. I think it is foolish to continue beating our heads against the wall expecting that might break through. Let fear paralyze us further. That seems to be all that Americans respond to anymore.

All that is required is for people use their vote as it was intended instead of perpetuating the status quo. But, people are fearful because they've been so deeply indoctrinated into the two-party concept that they can't see past it. We can expect another 4 years of Republican rule regardless of who gets in.
Rick, I've been looking at Rocky as well and the Justice party. I think this one might have a chance. I certainly can't vote for Obama after today. He's just helped to destroy our Bill of Rights. Good god. It's unbelievable.

It's been a while since you've been around my neck of the woods. Happy to see you.

Yes, I'm ready to move past the empty rhetoric and blatant lies that we've been perpetuating for far too long. The major issues that we face as a nation are not being addressed honestly by other candidates. And even if there were, even if they begin to address them rhetorically, only a fool would believe that rhetoric. How can anyone believe anything Obama “promises” (I've grown to dislike that word)?

Now Obama has caved on the National Defense Authorization Act, the indefinite detention bill that undermines several of our most precious societal protections against police-state abuses. Since protests are considered “low-level terrorism”, what can we expect when OWS participants show up at planned protests?

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.