I meant kick them in the ass. Obviously, of the only two parties we have, it is the only option for decency (if only in its rhetoric).

We have to demand more out of it - beat it into shape. They are politicians and that's how it works. The worst thing we can do is treat it like a fragile flower that needs our support no matter how spineless and corporate friendly it becomes.

I don't think you read my email carefully -- or maybe you are saying something other than what I assume.

I did not say don't support the Democrats, I said use political pressure to make them a good party. Now I guess we do disagree if you are saying don't ever apply political pressure anywhere, just pick the best you've got and that's all a democracy can do (which I assume you do not mean).

Also, you say: "Now the pipelines are in flames. Not so good for oil." Not so sure. If you are big oil, it is better to take Iraqi oil off the market and let prices rise rather than have nationalized Iraqi oil, which leads to lower prices and lower profits. Part of the reason Saddam became an "evildoer" is because he moved to nationalize his oil and was getting ready to switch his pricing to Euros. As for the timing, I think that was a combination of things: taking the time to stretch 9/11 into Iraq for public and congressional support; the move to Euros; the spin of success in Afghanistan.

Great observation. Hats off to you.

Okay, you and I certainly do disagree.

First off, I believe you are wrong about the "middle" in two respects: 1st is that comparing my opinions to theirs isn't useful, as most folks don't follow news carefully and therefore aren't very engaged or informed (not necessarily a fault of their own, it takes work to keep up); 2nd, even the opinions they do have are not for lower taxes and smaller government. I suggest you look at polling, which on the issues puts the public well to the left of the media and the Democrats in a few key respects (broad support for single payer health, want to get out of Iraq with a timetable, would pay more in taxes to help poor/improve education/get healthcare, believe corporations have way to much political power).

nerdnam, you are perpetuating the idea that we should do nothing. That to do something makes you on the fringe -- oh, like King, Gandhi, or even the socialists in the US who influenced FDR and the Dems to produce Social Security and other great programs. Activism works because that great middle understands truth when they see it, and truth often starts among the minority.

I would guess that if we had to choose between Hitler and the Devil himself, you'd be attacking anyone who didn't unconditionally support whichever one of them you found less evil. I'm not saying the Democrats or the Republicans are either, but the general point is that if I'm going to have only two parties, I'm damn well going to try to make one of them a party I can vote for with confidence. And if that makes me some kind of freakshow in your eyes, so be it.

You wrote:

"Once you recognize the political fact that power resides with the people in this country, then you recognize what you have to do about it, and in this case that is talk to the people, not the media or the corporate masters. You can't hang around on street corners and wave signs and beat drums, because that doesn't get anywhere with the people anymore. Nobody's listening."

Huh? Where did I advocate beating the drums? And where did I advocate not talking to the people? You were the one that said we shouldn't work to change the party but instead pick a candidate and support that candidate -- that this was the only way to participate in democracy (I realize you know see how narrow that statement was).

And as for the idea that corporations and heads of state need the people, and therefore cater to the people, I don't know where to begin. Lions need antelope, so they cater to antelope? Give me a break. You are really delusional. (And no, I am not attacking all corporations or all politicians -- only saying that their dependence on humans does not mandate catering, only that it mandates responsiveness, which comes in many forms, good and evil).

Why do you keep pushing Bill O'Reilly talking points: people want low taxes and less government. It just is not true. Maybe your friends do, but that is not an accurate characterization of the public.

You said: "Political parties just reflect their supporters, whoever they are." Yes, in the case of U.S. parties "supporters" would be corporations; the rest -- your war on crime and low taxes -- is what is sold to the public -- not because the public demands it, because the "supporters" want it.

And as you point out, we have a two party system and must therefore choose between a pro-choice corporate party and a homophobic corporate party. Ain't democracy swell?

But to take you seriously for a second, what if, in your reality, corporations did pay for our politicians' political campaigns, and politicians did their bidding. In that scenario, neither party would be giving the people what they want. How would the power of the people, of which you speak, do anything about it? You yourself said we can never vote for another party. Seems like you've navigated yourself into a dead end.