[NYTr] Dennis Kucinich and the Party Pol Elite: Let's Stop Voting for "The Electable."

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

[a memo for "liberals." by Alanna Hartzok quoting Marianne Williamson,
who seems genuinely surprised that "we liberals" (speak for yourself,
Marianne) aren't supporting Dennis Kucinich -- or, we might add, Mike
Gravel or Ron Paul The source of the Williamson piece is unclear, but
it quite sensibly attacks the notion of voting for candidates
primarily on the basis of their "electability" or "broad appeal" -NYTr]


sent by Alanna Hartzok - activ-l - Dec 14, 2007


Dennis Kucinich and elite policy party manipulations

Sitting at a party recently, among some powerful liberals ringing
their hands about Hillary appearing heartless, Obama appearing weak,
and Edwards appearing - well, no one can quite put their finger on it -
I said, "The only question any real progressive should be asking right
now is, 'Tell me again why we're not supporting Kucinich?'" The room
grew silent. There was no, "Awe, come on, be serious!" No one
good-naturedly shouted me down, as they would have two or three months
ago. Rather I was met by silence. I saw people around me slowly nodding
their heads.

I feel a shift. Subtle. But there. People are starting to wake up to
the fact that a media/political party-complex basically decide our
candidate then create the illusion for the rest of us that in fact
we're the ones who did the deciding. But the only thing we're truly
free to decide now - and which we should decide now -- is whether we'll
put up with all this thought manipulation for one minute more." (these
two paras from below):

Grant yourself permission to vote for YOU in this election Please watch
the youtube video produced by an independent voter on
http://www.kucinichforamerica.us and remember that Dennis won 41 states
on the Democracy for America (DFA) poll, won 46 states on the PDA poll,
consistently wins the online polls after debates, and just look at the
issues stats on sites like http://www.dehp.net/candidate this article
by Marianne Williamson I think you need to read: 


POLITICS AND THE THOUGHT POLICE 

by Marianne Williamson

The thought police are an insidious lot.

Their headquarters aren't in some bright shiny building. Or perhaps it
s more accurate to say that their headquarters are in many shiny
buildings.

And they don't announce themselves as the thought police. Who needs to
get into the messy work of actually policing people, when it's so easy
just to fool them? They're more like a Bureau of Thought Manipulation.
This being an election season, they're particularly active now --
throughout the media, the government, the Republican National Committee
and the Democratic National Committee. They - not the President, as
much as he might like to think he is - are the "deciders."

We Liberals like to think our thoughts aren't controlled. We pride
ourselves on our independent thinking. We know we shouldn't believe
everything we read. We realize the media is skewed, we know it's owned
by a small group of people, we realize it's biased, etc. So given all
that, one has to ask oneself -- why are Democrats buying so much
prevailing b.s. hook, line, and sinker, allowing ourselves to be led
down the same path that led us to defeat in the last two presidential
elections?

Remember Howard Dean, the anti-war candidate? As much as a lot of us
liked him, we were led to believe we'd have to be more mature about
this. We couldn't just indulge our passion. We had to be smart here; no
just going with our gut, or - God forbid - our principles. We were
pressured by the official thought manipulators to go with someone
"electable," like John Kerry. It's as though some Democratic "wisdom
council" -- the same guys who told Gore he'd never be elected if he
just spoke from his heart, and clearly must have told John Kerry the
same thing -- decide not just the political strategy that will
supposedly win the White House, but even the thoughts that the rest of
us have to buy into in order to give them permission to determine the
strategy.

No one ever stops to ask "Who are these guys?" (Interestingly, George
Washington warned us in his farewell address about "the baneful effects
of the spirit of party generally." ) We always just assume they know
what they're talking about. We figure they're the ones who understand
politics.

Right.

So after Kerry lost, for at least a day or two we saw through the fog
Those guys needed to be run out of town, we all shouted! Their strategy
had led to defeat! Next time, we were going to go with our gut, stand
on our principles! In retrospect, we could see that Gore and Kerry
would have been better off if they had come across like genuine
alternatives to the Republicans - not just Republican lites! We got it!
2008 would be different!

Oh yeah? Look again.

That same crowd is still clearly in charge, because you can tell their
thought patterns a mile away. Today, their chosen candidate has a
hyphenated name: Clinton-Obama-Edwards. This tri-candidate has all the
markings of DNC thought manipulator approval: Just enough illusion of
real difference from the Republicans to keep the
not-yet-resisting-thought-manipulation Democrat happy; and just enough
similarity to the prevailing establishment that the American people
should buy it. This has been our strategy for the last three
presidential elections has it not? And just like Bush regarding his
policy in Iraq, we seem to be in complete denial that our policy is a
failed one. It didn't work last time or even the time before that.

And I don't think we should assume it will work in 2008.

For those of us who actually think we should bring the troops home now,
tell me again why we're not supporting Kucinich?

Silly me! Because he could never win, of course! He's not electable!

Didn't I get the memo?

I've known Dennis Kucinich for a long time, and I don't think I have
illusions about him. Sometimes I find him pompous, male chauvinistic,
intellectually unbending. But he is a good man, and a serious one. Some
sort of clown? No. New Age woo woo? No way (of course, the thought
manipulators have labeled me that as well, so some people would say
something here about the pot and the kettle). His banishment to the
margins of our political dialogue, his mockery by the media-DNC elite
special forces, has less to do with who he is, and what he stands for,
than it has to do with the anti-Democratic forces that have hijacked
our politics on both sides of the aisle.

Why won't we take Dennis Kucinich more seriously as our candidate in
2008? Because Tim Russert took twenty minutes to even get around to
asking him a question in the last debate. Because Russert's idea of a
real question -- after a couple of times when Kucinich inconveniently
hit the ball out of the park with his answers --was to query him about
seeing a UFO, then throwing in Shirley McLaine's name just to confirm
the kill. It didn't matter that Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan had both
spoken publicly about seeing UFO's. What mattered was how the image
could be used to make Kucinich appear ridiculous -- serving the
strategy of the elite machine still running things and for whom
Kucinich is not an acceptable candidate.

In 2004, Kucinich was the only Presidential candidate who warned that a
war in Iraq would be completely disastrous. I remember how mocked he
was when he predicted hand-to-hand combat in Baghdad. I remember Candy
Crowley, and other reporters as well, treating his views on the
impending war as ridiculous, out there, almost insane. I remember
Democratic strategists rolling their eyes then, as they do about him
now. But in fact, Dennis Kucinich was the one who turned out to be
right. I have to ask you: Who's zoomin' who?

Something very dark, almost Orwellian, is afoot here, and the issue is
much bigger than whether or not Dennis Kucinich gets a shot at the
Presidency. It's about whether or not we do. Or whether the thought
manipulators have it all sewn up.

Sitting at a party recently, among some powerful liberals ringing their
hands about Hillary appearing heartless, Obama appearing weak, and
Edwards appearing - well, no one can quite put their finger on it - I
said, The only question any real progressive should be asking right now
is, 'Tell me again why we're not supporting Kucinich?' " The room grew
silent. There was no, "Awe, come on, be serious!" No one good-naturedly
shouted me down, as they would have two or three months ago. Rather I
was met by silence. I saw people around me slowly nodding their heads.

I feel a shift. Subtle. But there. People are starting to wake up to
the fact that a media/political party-complex basically decide our
candidate then create the illusion for the rest of us that in fact
we're the ones who did the deciding. But the only thing we're truly
free to decide now - and which we should decide now -- is whether we'll
put up with all this thought manipulation for one minute more.

Tell me again, why we're not supporting Kucinich?