Paging a third-party candidate

Somebody run for President!

Viable or not, I don't care. Ralph. Bill Moyers. Gus Hall, where are you now? (I know, I know).

There's overwhelming popular support among regular folks for an impartial approach vis a vis Israel's attack on Lebanon ("65 per cent of respondents think the U.S. should not take either side"), but that 65 percent equals zero in the House and Senate, where AIPAC is literally penning House resolutions.

The disconnect between the Democrat War Party and its constituency has never been more pronounced than it is on the question of the widening wars in the Middle East.

From here, it looks like voters are helpless to stop the runaway train that at the moment keeps the U.S. from pulling out of Iraq, supports the terror bombing of Lebanon, and will ultimately lead to military attacks on Syria and Iran.

Billmon's The War Party is an astute analysis first of the mighty hole the U.S. has dug itself with its recklessness in the Middle East to date, and then a (properly) despairing lament that antiwar Americans have absolutely no political representation in either of the major parties.

What's become clear to me is that the Democratic Party (even it's allegedly anti-war wing) will not try to stop this insanity, and in fact will probably be led as meekly to the slaughter as it was during the runup to the Iraq invasion. Watching the Dems line up to salute the Israeli war machine, hearing the uncomfortable and awkward silence descend on most of Left Blogistan once the bombs started falling in Lebanon, seeing how easily the same Orwellian propaganda tricks worked their magic on the pseudoliberals -- all this doesn't leave too much room for doubt. As long as World War III can be sold as protecting the security and survival of the Jewish state, I suspect the overwhelming majority of Democratics will support it.

.... I think the moment when I realized the Dems once again were going to be -- would always be -- dutiful spear carriers for the neocons was after Howard Dean and company treated the Iraqi prime minister's recent visit to Washington as an opportunity to do a little pro-Israel pandering of their own.

... The lesson learned from the Democratic reaction to the Israel's war of choice is that the Dems are only likely to oppose war as long as the war in question can be framed as a fight against Iraqi insurgents and/or Shi'a death squads, rather than a fight for Israel. But the Iraq occupation isn't going to fit neatly into that frame much longer. In fact it's already slipped out of it. The Dems -- always a little slow on the uptake -- just haven't realized it yet. But when the time comes to choose (for Israel, or against war with Iran) I fully expect to see Ned Lamont in the front ranks of the pro-war phalanx, right next to the last great white Democratic anti-war hope, Howard Dean.

People tell me I shouldn't get hung up on this because, you know, if the Dems get in they'll make sure the seniors get their Social Security checks a little faster -- or they'll keep the Supreme Court out of the hands of legal madmen or do something about global climate change or save the whales or whatever else it is that's supposed to make the Democratic Party infinitely preferable to the Republicans.

It's not that I discount these differences entirely -- although they're easily oversold. But compared to the fate that awaits the republic, and the world, if the United States deliberately starts a war with Iran, those other considerations start to look pretty insignificant. I mean, we're talking about World War III here, fought by people who want to use tactical nuclear weapons. I'm supposed to put that out of my mind because the Dems might be a little bit more generous about funding the VA budget??? I'm sorry, but that's fucking nuts.

Read the whole post...