Democrats’ McCarthyism Hits Greens’ Stein

Democratic Party hysteria blaming Russia for Hillary Clinton’s defeat has spilled over into McCarthyistic smears against Green Party candidate Jill Stein for attending a dinner in Moscow, reports Nat Parry.

By Nat Parry

Four months since the upset election of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, one of the primary scapegoats of the Democrats for its stunning electoral failure remains the Green Party and its 2016 presidential nominee, Jill Stein. Pointing to final vote tallies in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan that showed Trump’s margin of victory as being below the total vote count for Stein, Democrats have coalesced around the conventional wisdom that Stein voters flipped the election by failing to unite behind the Democratic nominee.

Jill Stein attending a dinner marking the RT network’s 10-year anniversary in Moscow, December 2015, sitting at the same table as Russian President Vladimir Putin.

As Matthew Rozsa explains the thinking at Salon, “if the Stein voters in those three states had all supported Clinton instead of Trump, the Republican candidate would have only received 260 electoral votes – 10 shy of the minimum necessary to become president.” So there you have it. Stein spoiled the election. Case closed.

The problem with this analysis is its flawed logic that anyone’s votes actually “belong” to anyone else, and further, it rests on the false assumption that all of Stein’s voters would have naturally voted for Clinton had the Green Party not been competing in the election.

The fact is, many of these voters were turned off by Clinton’s hawkishness, perceived ethical lapses and close Wall Street ties, and would have never voted for her regardless of whether there was a third party alternative or not. Some would have stayed home, and others might have actually voted for Trump.

The suggestion that smaller parties don’t have a right to compete is also deeply anti-democratic and flies in the face of international standards for free and fair elections. Although Democrats rarely come out and openly state their desire for the Green Party to cease to exist, they do pointedly take issue with Green candidates competing in close elections, with the Democratic establishment seeing the Greens’ challenge from the left as an affront that complicates their electoral strategies.

Whether they acknowledge it or not, what Democrats seem to be suggesting is that people who do not identify with the candidates or positions of the Democratic Party simply should not have the option to vote for alternative candidates or to organize oppositional parties.

But according to an agreement signed by the United States in 1990 providing basic principles for democratic elections, individuals have the right “to establish, in full freedom, their own political parties or other political organizations” and governments must provide these parties the “necessary legal guarantees to enable them to compete with each other on a basis of equal treatment before the law and by the authorities.”

Doubling Down

Despite these international commitments, the Democrats have doubled down on their attacks against Stein in the months since the election, now claiming that not only did she spoil the election by siphoning votes from Clinton, but that she may have done so at the bidding of Russian President Vladimir Putin – never mind the fact that Greens have been running presidential candidates in every U.S. election since 1996.

A wintery scene in Moscow, near Red Square. (Photo by Robert Parry)

Democratic Party operatives have spread salacious rumors suggesting that Stein is under Putin’s control, using a photo taken in late 2015 of Stein sitting at a table with the Russian leader as proof of possible disloyalty or perhaps even treason.

Viewed within the current context of the “new Cold War” and as part and parcel of the Russian election-meddling allegations, the photo of Stein is all the evidence needed by many Democrats predisposed to assume the worst about the Green Party and its nominee.

It should be kept in mind however that Stein has never attempted to conceal the fact that she attended this “controversial” dinner, which was marking the RT network’s 10-year anniversary, nor that she sat at a table with the Russian president.

In fact, following the dinner, her presidential campaign issued a press release which stated matter-of-factly, “Stein attended a dinner Thursday night, sitting at the table with Russian President Vladimir Putin.”

The press release described Stein’s speech at the dinner in which she admonished both the United States and Russia for pursuing militaristic policies and spending too much money on a pointless arms race.

“The United States is now embarking on a $1 trillion program to update its nuclear weaponry while we are slashing programs to fight hunger, address homelessness, and provide economic security for our people,” Stein said. “In Russia also, money runs short for critical needs because of the heavy burden of military spending. Imagine how much better off the world would be if our two nations could lead the way for the major powers to reduce the size of our military establishments.”

Stein also posted on Facebook that she “was in Russia to speak at an RT conference along with many other people, including many fellow activists from the peace movement.” While there, she shared a video message on YouTube – recorded from Moscow’s Red Square – in which she called for an end to militarism, and for an international order based on respect for human rights and international law.


Despite her openness about her participation in the dinner, in these neo-McCarthyite times of wild speculation, baseless innuendo and general anti-Russian hysteria, Democratic operatives and bloggers are raising questions about whether the dinner is proof that Stein is actually on the payroll of the Russian government. The insinuation is that her 2016 campaign for the presidency was intended to help throw the election in favor of Trump, acting at the behest of Putin.

Lawyer Roy Cohn (right) with Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

Trolling Jill Stein’s Twitter account with these sorts of accusations has seemingly become second nature to many Democratic Party supporters, with every tweet by Stein responded to by dozens of hostile Democrats who continue to blame the Green Party for spoiling the election.

Typical is a response to a tweet Stein sent out on March 2 in support of ranked choice voting. “Democrats used a runoff vote for DNC chair, so why are they fighting runoff voting in places like CA & MN?,” Stein tweeted.

“Are you trying to take focus off of your Russian buddy?” replied a Democratic partisan going by the name of Trice. “Is Vlad paying your bills or are you using the recount $ you scammed?”

A blogger named Bill Palmer went even further in a Feb. 24 post at the “Palmer Report.” Pointing to a New York Daily News article which alleges that Michael Flynn was paid $40,000 to attend the dinner with Putin in Dec. 2015, Palmer notes that “this raises a serious question which Jill Stein must now answer: did the Kremlin also pay her to be at the dinner?”

At the Daily Beast, Casey Michel also suggested that Stein is accepting bribes from the Russian government. Michel wrote on Jan. 13, “it remains unclear who paid for Stein’s trip to Moscow and her accommodations there.”

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow has also promoted the Stein-as-Russian-agent conspiracy theory, implying recently that Stein’s relative silence on the Russian-hacking story implicates her as a Kremlin stooge.

“So everybody’s like, ‘Wow, how come this like super, super aggressive opposition that we saw from these third-party candidates – how come they haven’t said anything since this scandal has broken?’” Maddow said on Viceland’s Desus & Mero show on Feb. 15.

“I don’t know, Jill! I can’t pronounce it in Russian!” Maddow said mockingly. “Hope you’re really psyched about your Wisconsin vote totals!”

Useful Target

While it would certainly be interesting if Stein actually received money from the Russian government to appear at the RT dinner, it should be noted that in her video message from Red Square, Stein started off by thanking Green Party supporters “for making this wonderful and inspiring trip possible.” This is an indication from Stein that her grassroots campaign donors paid for the trip.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaking with supporters at a campaign rally in Phoenix, Arizona, March 21, 2016. (Photo by Gage Skidmore)

It should also be pointed out that if Stein’s loyalty to America is being called into question for attending this dinner, it would only be fair to raise suspicions about the national loyalties of all the others who attended the event, a guest list that included international diplomats, journalists, a former mayor of London, and senior statesmen.

But of course, these are not the targets de jure of the Democratic Party, which has instead zeroed in on Stein and the Green Party. This gives the appearance of selective outrage, amounting to little more than a smear job by those growing desperate to hold on to voters and donors at a time when a majority of Americans are clamoring for alternatives and identifying not as Democrat or Republican but as independent.

A survey last year by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research reported that a full 90 percent of voters lack confidence in the country’s political system while 70 percent said they feel frustrated about the 2016 presidential election and 55 percent reported feeling “helpless.” Forty percent said the two-party structure is “seriously broken.”

Another survey taken last summer found that 55 percent of Americans favored having an independent or third party presidential candidate to consider on the ballot, in addition to the two traditional party choices. Of those 29 years of age and younger, 91 percent expressed support for additional choices.

It is in this context of discontent that the current smears against the Green Party should be understood. The two dominant parties know that Americans are hungry for alternatives, so party operatives are working overtime to discredit the only viable alternatives that exist to the status quo.

It is an undemocratic strategy to sideline genuine competition, and is doubly irresponsible by claiming that a political figure is working at the behest of a foreign power – especially in these days of deepening division and a growing neo-McCarthyism.

As an added bonus, this undemocratic strategy does not appear to be helping the Democrats, and indeed, ever since the party decided some time last fall to zero in on the “Russian hacking” story as their primary line of attack, their poll numbers have plummeted.  Their favorability rating has dropped from about 50 percent just before the election to a current low of about 39 percent. Their unfavorability rating is now 49 percent, the highest it’s been for three years.

If the Democrats hope to reverse some of these trends, they might try developing policy ideas that help Americans rather than attacking progressives for throwing their support behind alternative parties, and perhaps consider giving it a rest with the McCarthyite smears against those perceived to be “Russian sympathizers.”

Editor’s Note: In line with this new McCarthyism, a Jan. 6 report by the Director of National Intelligence on alleged Russian interference in U.S. politics included a seven-page appendix, dating from 2012, that accused RT of portraying “the US electoral process as undemocratic.”

The DNI’s “proof” included the accusation that RT had undermined Americans’ faith in the U.S. democratic process because “RT broadcast, hosted and advertised third-party candidate debates.”

Further, the DNI’s report complained, “The RT hosts asserted that the US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a ‘sham.’” The fact that these RT assertions are truthful apparently didn’t deter DNI James Clapper from seeing this recognition of reality as evidence of Russian perfidy.

The report also took RT to task for covering the Occupy Wall Street movement and for reporting on the environmental dangers from “fracking,” topics cited as further proof that the Russian government was using RT to weaken U.S. public support for Washington’s policies. [End Editor’s Note]

Nat Parry is co-author of Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush. [This story originally appeared at ]

78 comments for “Democrats’ McCarthyism Hits Greens’ Stein

  1. Spottless Marxx
    March 23, 2017 at 01:46

    That picture of Stein with Flynn and Putin has ended her career as a serious political figure worthy of attention. Wrong place at the wrong time or just plain old wrong… Doesn’t matter. She’s done.

  2. Kathleen Parente
    March 15, 2017 at 23:22

    Time for a third party or fourth fifth. How can we make this start to become a reality. We need choices. We need these other parties to receive equal air time equal respect equal position of value.

  3. Zhu
    March 12, 2017 at 19:03

    Very true, I’m afraid. D’s have been GOP-lite for quite a while. This absurd conspiracy theory “Russia stole my election” is as ridiculous as the R’s “Obama is a Kenyan Muslim” nonsense of the last 8 years.

  4. TruthSeeker
    March 12, 2017 at 14:38

    I might have taken your article as more objective if it had also included Stein’s open praise for Kremlin backed, Julian Assange, and her dismissal of Russian involvement in DNC leaks was something “state departments do to one another.” I will attempt to reserve judgement on Ms. Stein until I have more information, however, I find her support of Assange quite troubling.

    Regarding McCarthyism, it is high time that more sober, objective, journalistic light be directed onto the question, “To what extent are Kremlin seeded disinformation strategies being used to destabilize western democracies.” When our POTUS can call the press, “the enemy of the people” and half of America cheers along, it’s time that those who wish to support a free and active press wake up and demand more clarity about what has catalyzed this mass mistrust of the media (over two plus decades). This is not a partisan issue. Both hard leaning left and right media outlets appear to be increasingly subscribing to Kremlin encouraged rhetoric, whether wittingly or not. You can bet that both these media outlets, as well as our currant White House, will resist any light which is focused on this topic, and continue to deflect investigations with terms such as, “Neo-McCarthyism” and “Russian Hysteria”.

    I am not saying that I know the answer to the question above. The more I research on my own, the more I am convince of the need for non-partisan, independent investigations. As evidence of Russian influence begins to be exposed, perhaps, you will consider casting your own investigative journalist light on this troubling and murky topic.

    • Ted
      March 12, 2017 at 16:24

      In the most recent article on Consortium News (The Democrats’ Dangerous Diversion), appears the following: ‘My copy of Alice in Wonderland has a quotation from James Joyce in the front of the book: “Wipe your glasses with what you know.”’

      The problem is that we really don’t know what we don’t know, and often think we do know what we, in fact, do not. Not that reality isn’t knowable, just that it is often twisted and hidden from us…on purpose. Then there are our personal filters…

      I have my own saying: “Trust your intuition.” It is my intuition that leads me to write that I intuit that I am being lied to and spun on a regular basis. Thus, I try to apply context to much of what I read and see and hear.

      Having said all that, I believe that there is a connection between Russia/Putin and the hacking of the 2016 election. I don’t trust Putin any farther than I can throw him…or Trump.

      Finally, this article is about the perennial scapegoating by the Democratic Party. I have been around Left politics long enough to know that the DP will not allow any interlopers encroaching on their territory and will use any means necessary to prevent it, and when they fall short, resort to scapegoating and spinning and smearing. I intuit this. Actually, I know it.

  5. Perry Logan
    March 12, 2017 at 11:26

    I question your rhetoric. I have yet to see one prominent Democratic blame Russia for Hillary’s defeat, nor have I seen any rhetoric that might be called hysterical or McCarthyite. The hysteria seems to be coming mostly from the alt-Left (or as I call them, the misogynist left).

  6. March 12, 2017 at 09:12

    Nat’s barking up the wrong tree here, I think. The real story (which is sort of the opposite of what Nat points to) lies elsewhere. I recommend that readers have a look at Scott Creighton’s article “Jill Stein’s “The Russians Did It” Recount Petition Is Based Entirely On Flawed And Discredited MSM Propaganda Report.” –

  7. Chris Butcher
    March 12, 2017 at 02:16

    If Heather’so propaganda is the position of the Dumocrapic Party, then I hope we Greens and our allies continue to deny them EVER winning any election again!! They are not only in deep denial, but they have set themselves up to lose again in the 2018 elections. Go Greens!!

  8. March 11, 2017 at 23:42

    I voted for Jill Stein, and even gave away 100 Green Party t-shirts I designed and had made, at my expense.
    Most of the people I know who voted for Stein agreed with her that Clinton was the greater evil.
    I called Sanders the lesser evil and Trump the unknown evil.
    We went from a country where 55% of people thought things were bad, to a country where 95% of people think things are bad, but disagree on what.

  9. Z54
    March 11, 2017 at 20:22

    There was no way in hell that my wife or I were going to vote for Hillary Clinton, and there was no way in hell that either one of us was going to vote for Donald Trump. So on principle, not with rings through our noses like the democrats, we voted for Jill Stein

  10. Michael Kenny
    March 11, 2017 at 14:52

    What’s interesting is how “toxic” Putin has become. Nobody wants to have it said of them that they ever had anything to do with him. It should be remembered that the event in question took place in December 2015, well after Putin had grabbed Crimea, was formeting fake “rebellions” in other parts of Ukraine’s sovereign territory and threatening to make war if Ukraine dared to exercise its sovereign right to control its own territory. Attending a conference organised by Putin at that point and sitting down to dinner at his table was like dining with Hitler after the latter had grabbed Czechoslovakia. RT’s programming consists essentailly of boring American nonentities conducting boring discussions with other boring American nonentities on American political subjects, both domestic and foreign. A Russian point of view is hardly ever expressed and Russian stories are treated as US foreign news!. I don’t think the station can have any significant influence, even on those who have the stomach to sit through the boredom. By attending the conference, both Ms Stein and General Flynn appeared to endorse Putin’s conduct in Ukraine and for that, they deserve to be criticised.

  11. Robert Anderson
    March 11, 2017 at 14:46

    Is the Democratic party beyond saving? It appears so.

    PS – Trump called Roy Cohn his mentor!

  12. colleen
    March 11, 2017 at 12:22

    Why are all the congressional junkets to israel never challenged?

    • March 11, 2017 at 13:54

      Also, re: 9/11 put “5 Dancing Israelis” into a search engine and follow the links.

  13. Mark Thomason
    March 11, 2017 at 12:00

    Democrats are deep in the Stages of Grief.

    They can’t see, simply won’t see, that Hillary is to blame for everything, nor that it was predictable and entirely the fault of the DNC Democratic Establishment for setting itself up for defeat by offering a horrible candidate.

    Horrible Hillary just promised them too much and paid them too much. It overcome their own judgment of their base and her weaknesses.

    They got what they had coming to them for their own bad behavior, and they are doubling down on that instead of facing that they are like addicts who have hit bottom with nobody to blame but themselves.

  14. tom hussey
    March 11, 2017 at 03:50

    Risking charges of heresy, I would suggest another reason why voters are turning away from both parties, but especially from the Democrats. I turned away from both Hillary and the Democrats because of their unqualified support for Israel. Clinton boasted early in the campaign that she would meet Netanyahu very soon after he inauguration and that she intended to carry our relations with Israel to a “higher level.” This at a time when Trump was expressing a desire for better relations with Russia. Which position do you think carried more weight with voters?
    Two friends and I hosted, for about five years, a “Palestinian table” at our local Saturday market, where we distributed literature supporting the Palestinian cause and critical of Israeli policies. We were well received, but I noted many people who were clearly nervous about speaking to us, indicating that they didn’t feel safe saying openly what they were saying to us. This is indicative of the fear and dread inspired by Israeli supporters’ knee-jerk tendency to denounce anyone speaking out against Israel and for the oppressed Palestinians as an “anti-Semite” or worse. The Democrats are going to continue to suffer for their close alliance with Israel. Republicans seek Israeli support too, but the Republicans merely bow low to Israel; the Democrats prostrate themselves.

    • richard vajs
      March 12, 2017 at 11:53

      You are brave to state that Democratic Party prostration to Israel is a growing problem – I think that it will eventually split the Democratic Party. The Democrats like to call themselves “liberals and progressives”, but there is a distinction and a difference between “liberals and “progressives”, and the Hillary Democrats are liberals only. How possibly could a progressive person continue to ignore the fact that the major recipient of our foreign aid is an apartheid state that is low enough to steal land from their abused natives? True progressives such as Jill Stein or Bernie Sanders are willing forego ethnic alliances to do the right thing.
      As the Israeli right-wingers continue to abuse Palestinian human rights, this issue will split the Democratic Party into two groups – the money-chasing “liberals” and the truly “progressive”. Other issues will align themselves on either side of this division, e.g. national health care, progressive taxation, free tuition, banking reform, etc. The “liberal”, money-grubbing Democratic Party will go the way of the Whigs.

  15. Philip Reiss, author of "Blue Eyes On African-American History: A Learning Adventure"
    March 10, 2017 at 21:23

    Clinton the Hawk – no new news. It was reported that 9 out of 10 of her biggest political contributors were corporate interests that received gobs of money from Pentagon contracts. Also, she proposed a “no fly zone” over Syria. That was a challenge to Russia’s right to fly there with as much right as the U.S. perceives it has to do the same. She hoped Russia wouldn’t comply with that U.S. proposition. Then she could call for more provocative measures to increase the tensions between the countries, which is what her agenda called for. Her agenda was basically a blueprint for going to war with Russia. What does the Nobel Peace Prize mean in these times? Obama cheapened its value as Hillary well knows, so she’s not at all interested in that now blemished and dubious award. She and John McCain are bedfellows when it comes to promoting military actions to resolve problems which they would have us believe can only be resolved by military force. There was a big rock and roll hit song back in the ‘Sixties titled “We Won’t Be Fooled Again,” Well politicians like Clinton, McCain, Trump, and Hitler’s Joseph Goebbels knew every new generation can be fooled again – they count on it!.

  16. Kerry Pay Mann
    March 10, 2017 at 21:05

    Exactly as my designed/paid bumper sticker states, ‘If Hill then Jill!”. DNC ignorant because independents and Bernie voters unable to trust hawk Hillary because Bill betrayed liberal causes by signing welfare reform and repeal of separation of investment banking from regular banking. AIG would have collapsed and all banks should have been allowed to go bankrupt! Design new economic model. Not capitalism!

  17. Eli
    March 10, 2017 at 16:18

    I voted for Jill Stein. After all, I am a liberal. Hillary and her warmongering, corporate-friendly policies were never an option. She and the Democratic party still don’t get it…refuse to look in the mirror, even after taking another epic beating at the polls. Oh well, I guess as long as they keep getting that corporate cash it’s all good.

  18. Bob In Portland
    March 10, 2017 at 15:36

    Don’t get freaked out, but this is my theory of what happened to the Democratic Party.

    After the CIA and Deep State removed JFK, they looked for ways to control the Democratic Party (it wasn’t very hard to find corporatists to promote in the Republican Party). Bill and Hillary Clinton were recruited. Hillary’s embrace of the Democratic Party in 1968 doesn’t ring true, and what college student at the time could afford or would want to go to both the Republican and Democratic national conventions. A look at their history suggests as much. H. Clinton looks like she started out in the FBI COINTELPRO, spying on Black Panther activity, Bill started out spying on the anti-war movement in Europe while he was studying there.

    It was a marriage made in Langley, which might explain why their relationship has appeared from the outside to be “forced” or a matter of convenience. Bill Clinton was in place as governor of Arkansas when the CIA was dropping duffel bags of cocaine into Mena (current governor and former Dubya drug czar Asa Hutchinson had been the federal prosecutor who had no interest in Mena at the time). The DLC was the device to push the party to the right, and the Clintons were to lead the assault.

    Aside from the domestic damage the Clintons have done, Hillary’s hawkishness is right out of McCarthy-era reaction. It’s not such a big jump from being a Goldwater Girl to being a McCarthyite. She just had to jump backwards.

    • colleen
      March 11, 2017 at 12:34

      totally sound analysis

  19. Ted
    March 10, 2017 at 13:07

    I…I can’t. I just can’t remain a Democrat any longer after this.

    The Democratic Party and its bagmen in the DNC are not about to give an inch in their march to…where? Who the fuck knows, but it’s not a place I want to go. They are about Power, I am about good governance and humane progress.

    That the Dems are so utterly tone deaf and irresponsible to once again blame a scapegoat, tells me how utterly bereft of integrity and vision they are. Power and money, just like the other side. Actually, it’s quite evident, they ARE the same side. It’s just that the Dems use a softer bat to batter us with.

    And by the way, I voted for Hillary only as an anti-Trump vote. Even when running against a malignant narcissist, HRC and the Democratic Party managed to run such an inept campaign that they lost it all. Then they point fingers.

    Fuck the Democratic Party! Their special circle in hell awaits.

  20. Douglas Mason
    March 10, 2017 at 10:49

    It would have been an even more interesting election if John McAfee had won the Libertarian caucus last year and been their candidate for president. See the documentary, “Gringo,” about his misadventures in the Central American country of Belize, where some called him “the Donald Trump of Belize.”

  21. ThisOldMan
    March 10, 2017 at 09:49

    BTW, Gary Johnson almost certainly took more votes away from Trump than Stein did from Clinton.

  22. MJD
    March 10, 2017 at 09:35

    Word to Dems. I voted for Jill Stein, and I would never, never vote for Hillary Clinton or any Democrat that attempts the “Vote for me or you get the REALLY bad guys”. It is so abusive. . .the same sort of language used on a battered spouse.

  23. Libby
    March 10, 2017 at 03:03

    A very good, sound article highlighting the anti-Democratic nature of our political system according to international standards. If we cannot come up with a third party at this point, our future looks grim indeed.

      March 10, 2017 at 09:25

      No, because Candidate Donald Trump is not dancing to the tune of the Deep State or the Establishment which is why the Deep State, with the important (for it) support of almost every Ph.D. in the nation, wants Trump gone—either assassinated or impeached.

      You need to read my Trump book which has “Deep State” in the title. It’s all there in black and white.

      Dr. Bart Gruzalski, Professor Emeritus, Philosophy and Religion, Northeastern University, Boston MA—and the only Philosophy Ph.D. whom I know, and I know hundreds, who supported Donald Trump and continues to support our POTUS

  24. Eddie
    March 9, 2017 at 23:51

    All this distractionary crapola from the Dems about “The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!” is tiresome. First of all, much as I hate it, the conservative Republicans have too much of the public’s eye and — at least here in Wisconsin (as in Michigan, Ohio, etc) — the majority of state and Congressional offices are going to them. A good progressive — Russ Feingold (whom I donated to) — lost bigger in WI’s senatorial race than Hillary did, and he lost to an empty-suit named Ron Johnson. There were no Russians — real or imagined — involved in that one, so how do the Dems explain that, how does Stein get blamed for that?

    I’m glad that I voted for Stein here in WI, given the other major choices. Was/is she perfect? Nah, but I’m not voting for someone running for sainthood, I’m voting against candidates (HRC, Trump, Obama’s 2nd term) who are war-mongers, casual or flagrant. And I voted FOR the general principles that the Greens espouse because, as Mr Merrill noted above, if we keep on voting for the same-old-same-old, why would we expect anything to change? What motivation would the Dems (much less the Repubs) have to change their platforms/positions IF they don’t feel it at the polls? That’s one of the few ways that positive change can happen in the US, even in the highly corrupt situation we’re in nowadays. Even IF a person entertained the idea, violence would never work here because the US military force is too strong and too many people (including myself) are too comfortable to risk it all to start/engage-in a civil war. And buying elections through huge campaign spending is an area that’s already dominated by the REALLY corrupt, monied forces

  25. Tomk
    March 9, 2017 at 23:28

    The USA is a nuclear banana Republic….what happens when you actually don’t have a “free” press but have what we have with the corporate globalist media spewing out its lies and toxicity daily….

      March 10, 2017 at 09:19


      Actually we do have a free press. This blog site is an example of it. What we don’t have is journalists willing to report the news but who, instead, have become and continue to be presstitutes (prostitute journalists) for the Hilliar Machine that includes Obama, NSA, CIA, NYT, and much more (Michael Moore, Amy Goodman, NSA, FBI at times, Washington Post all the time). That is what we need to resist and is why I’ve published three (actually four) books on POTUS TRUMP.

    • GM
      March 10, 2017 at 21:54

      Reporters Without Borders ranked the USA at 41st in press freedoms for 2016, right behind Slovenia.

  26. T. Mohr
    March 9, 2017 at 21:58

    It amazes me how 120 million Americans voted for the two most hated Liars in American politics seeking the Presidency.

    All the while, there was a party built on the principles of honesty and integrity, a party whose slogan differed from that of all others:

    People, Planet, and Peace over Profit.

    One million of us voted for this party, and 120 million voted to support Endless Wars, Income Inequality, Militarization of our Law Enforcement Agencies, Massive Tax Breaks and Corporate Welfare for the already Rich, etc.

    I have long held the belief it is important to have faith in our fellow men and women, however, after witnessing so many people voting on November 8th for these two openly corrupt political parties, I am beginning to question my faith.

    • richard vajs
      March 12, 2017 at 08:25

      T Mohr.
      Like you, I despised the two major candidates and voted Third Party. However, I believe change is right around the corner; simply because the present system no longer works. Hillary promised more of the same; Trump thinks that everything will be good if only we turned back the clock 50 or 60 years. Hillary represents corruption and aristocracy for America, Trump stands for nonsense. Our economy is dead – everything is now in the pockets of the rich, there is no velocity of money, and no political will to raise taxes on the rich to start a New Deal type of re-priming of the pump. We have an insanely large military – one that has also became inept. We are awash in petty politics and corruption, and money gouging by Wall Street and Big Pharma.
      This crappy capitalism will soon totally fail. Within several years, I predict that we will see actual starvation in the ghettoes and “hillbilly” trailer parks in America. It is that close! And then, the swamp will actually get drained – the neocons, the neoliberals, the nickel-grabbing hag in the $12,000 Versace outfit and the buffoon will all be disempowered and thrown in the street. Americans know that what they are being offered is junk, but they also know that redemption-by-election is simple. And given a choice between something easy but unlikely to work and something hard but likely; the average Joe will try the easy process first. But, the truth will triumph.

  27. Kalen
    March 9, 2017 at 21:24

    Of course this is a nonsense and attack on Stein is an absolute absurd not worth commenting.
    But I must comment on this Anti-Putin hysteria campaign that started in 2012 after his electoral win.

    It is all about new McCarthyism, new campaign of terror and blank, baseless grave accusations against anyone who dares to question supposedly official, MSM spewed stories, viscous campaign of alienation of independent politicians from their base, journalists from their readership under cloud of criminality, spying and FBI investigation against those who do not peddle official narratives who are not buying utter nonsense and who do not draw absurd conclusions based on lies and innuendos without any shred of evidence.

    The basic goal of provocateurs is that we accept evidence-free McCarthyite slanderous construct of enemy of America. Only because they say so. Once we accept their lies and their arbitrary determination of who are American enemies we give them credibility and accusatory power, power to accuse anyone of anything since in our own mind anyone’s behavior or opinions could be possibly consistent with what our enemy would have done, thought or intend, releasing us from a rigor of rational analysis and necessity of evidence based conclusion that is a foundation of any moral judgment.

    It leaves us atomized, divided scared animals full of fear and loathing. We must resist.

      March 10, 2017 at 09:12


      I absolutely agree with your conclusion which is worth emphasizing by quoting here:

      “”The basic goal of provocateurs is that we accept evidence-free McCarthyite slanderous construct of enemy of America. Only because they say so. Once we accept their lies and their arbitrary determination of who are American enemies we give them credibility and accusatory power, power to accuse anyone of anything since in our own mind anyone’s behavior or opinions could be possibly consistent with what our enemy would have done, thought or intend, releasing us from a rigor of rational analysis and necessity of evidence based conclusion that is a foundation of any moral judgment.

      It leaves us atomized, divided scared animals full of fear and loathing. We must resist.””

      Thank you.

      • March 11, 2017 at 13:46

        Research “citizen’s arrest.”

  28. March 9, 2017 at 20:51

    One of the points made in my essay on the fallacy of lesser-evilism:

    “How then might the Peace Movement accomplish the revolutionary change of ending U.S. foreign wars by falling for the choice of two evils gambit at election time? So long as we can be counted on to vote for either of the two major parties’ candidates, the War Party wins and neither the Republican nor Democratic party movers and shakers have any reason to accommodate peace voters.

    “What causes change in the two major political parties is losing elections. They either adapt to include the views of those identifiable segments of the population that cost them an election or they continue to lose elections.

    “So in my view if the Peace vote does not cost a major party an election as many times as it takes, we cannot cause our desired fundamental change in government. The choice of evils mindset at best trades a short-term not-so-evil “win” for yet another postponement of the fundamental change we seek: to make of the U.S.A. a peaceful nation.”

      March 10, 2017 at 09:10


      I disagree with the second paragraph of your comment. You write “So long as we can be counted on to vote for either of the two major parties’ candidates, the War Party wins and neither the Republican nor Democratic party movers and shakers have any reason to accommodate peace voters.”

      The fact is, POTUS Donald Trump is a Peace President, as I prove in each of my Trump books (all now available on Amazon). He is offering a way to defend the United States that adopts the same ahimsa policy that Mahatma Gandhi adopted. The proof is in each of my books and so I refer you to them.

      You very tantalizingly mentioned “my essay on the fallacy of lesser-evilism.” I’ve looked at your blog and am impressed—on most items you and I are reading the same hymnal. Question: is this essay the same one you entitled “Your Vote For Jill Stein Is Not A Wasted Vote”?


      Dr. Bart Gruzalski, Professor Emeritus, Philosophy (ethics and public policy) and Religion (includes my book on Gandhi and my account of his nonviolence/ahimsa), Northeastern University, Boston, MA

      • b.grand
        March 11, 2017 at 00:21

        Are you sure about Amazon? I see 2 books by you, not about Trump.

  29. March 9, 2017 at 17:39

    While I agree that calling Jill Stein or Ralph Nader or anyone else a spoiler, there is in fact a spoiler effect. Maybe that is a poor choice of a name to call the phenomena, but in fact there is a problem with the voting system we use. Plurality voting invites the spoiler effect that splits the votes for two fairly similar candidates. It happened in Maine in two consecutive races for Governor and that gave the state a Governor for eight years who seems to have been disfavored by a majority of the voters. The happy ending for this is that Maine passed a ballot initiative last November that will end the use of plurality voting in its major elections.

    There are quite a few alternatives to plurality voting that avoid the spoiler effect. Rather than wasting energy worrying about who was or was not a spoiler, it would seem better to put that energy into changing to another system of voting that avoids the problems altogether.

    • Miranda Keefe
      March 9, 2017 at 18:14

      If we had had ranked voting I would have put HRC at the bottom of my list. At the top would have been who I did vote for: Jill Stein.

      I’m sure others who voted for Stein would have done the same thing.

      Why would HRC have been at the bottom? Because I was convinced (and still am) she was the most likely to lead us into war with Russia.

      All this anti-Russian nonsense afterwards only confirms my perception.

      Trump as the second from the bottom means my rights and needs are under attack. But my needs are less important than the planet’s need for no war with Russia, plus what good is it for me to have my rights and needs met just until the whole thing falls apart and I die from radiation poisoning?

      • Rob Roy
        March 10, 2017 at 21:09

        Thank you, Miranda!

        Ranked voting is the fair way to vote. Jill Stein was for it. It makes sense. I think everyone would love it. The Democrats and Republicans would hate it, but we could put it on state ballots, state by state.

        Please read my comment above to Heather. I think you will like it.

    • Nat Parry
      March 10, 2017 at 04:22

      From what I understand, the Democrats have fought tooth and nail against any ranked-choice voting/instant runoff reforms in states across the country, and do you know why? Because they RELY on the threat of the spoiler effect for their electoral strategy. The “Pied Piper strategy” that was exposed in the DNC/Podesta email leaks makes clear that the very basis of their strategy is to scare people into voting for their candidate because the “alternative is so much worse.” That’s why they “elevated” Trump in the primaries (working hand in glove with the media establishment), because they wanted to run against the biggest buffoon with the highest negatives possible. Their only problem is they nominated an equally despised candidate and this time around many had a genuinely difficult time determining which one was the “lesser evil.”

      • March 11, 2017 at 13:43

        Bingo! They have been playing this “lesser evil” game ever since LBJ vs Goldwater in 1964, after the Deep State coup that killed Kennedy (NOT Oswald!). Most important book on this, “JFK and the Unspeakable,” by James Douglass with thousands of documentary footnotes. Also “Me and Lee,” by Judyth Vary Baker, his lover in the summer of 1963. She reports that as early as July of 1963, he was aware that he was being set up as the scapegoat, or as he himself put it, “the patsy,” which I personally remember him saying the only time he was allowed to say anything at all to the public.

  30. Heather
    March 9, 2017 at 17:34

    “While it would certainly be interesting if Stein actually received money from the Russian government to appear at the RT dinner….”

    Actually, Nat, it wouldn’t just be “interesting,” it would be illegal. Candidates for president cannot take campaign donations from foreign governments. I’m glad you’ve convinced yourself that Stein paid for that trip with her supporter’s hard-earned donations, but some of us are not convinced and would like an investigation to prove it.

    You are not doing your argument any favors by ignoring Jill Stein’s numerous pro-Russia comments, such as:

    “Speaking as part of a panel of foreign policy experts at a forum organized by the RT news network, Stein said that solutions to problems such as jihadi terrorism would require Russia and the United States to work together, shedding outdated cold war attitudes that prevented collaboration on problems facing both nations.
    “The Obama Administration’s obsession with toppling the government in Damascus is fundamentally inconsistent with winning the fight against ISIS…””

    The above is an excerpt from her own webpage. It sounds like a Kremlin press release. Oh, wait, it actually sounds like someone else’s campaign platform on Russia…who was it who said practically exactly the same thing…oh, yeah, it was Trump. And today, our military is in Syria, fighting ISIS, with the Russians. What a coincidence.

    • Ames Gilbert
      March 10, 2017 at 12:16

      Nice try, Heather, but try looking at the dates. Stein had not been nominated for president by the Green party when she attended that dinner. So, IF RT or whoever paid for the trip, it was not illegal. Try another smear.
      Also you managed to insinuate that anyone who supports any positive Russian point of view is suspect. I happen to think that Putin is one of the only grownups in the room, and that the present phase of Russia demonization is against our national interests. I happen to think that Quadaffi was running Libya just fine, that Assad was running Syria just fine, and that Hussein was running Iraq just fine before we came and smashed everything up, recklessly killing and maiming millions and turning millions more into refugees. Those regimes might not be to your taste, but they worked a heck of a lot better than the present chaos. Ditto Russia, you may not like Putin, but he runs Russia a heck of a lot better than Yeltsin, who the U.S. installed and supported. This is my independent point of view after reviewing all the facts that I can find. Amazingly few actual verifiable facts are available from the English-speaking MSM. Ever wondered why?

    • Rob Roy
      March 10, 2017 at 21:04

      Heather: Jill Stein was the only honest candidate running for president and the MSM would not let her have time in the newspapers or on TV. Her sensible platform was deliberately kept from the public. Bernie misjudged how disgusted the Democrats were with Hilary. I don’t know anyone who voted for Jill who would have voted for Hillary had Jill not been running. Democrats should simply disband and let the Green Party move along and do the right things for the citizens.
      As for Russia’s bad rap from the US mainstream, it comes from hanging on to Hillary’s determination to war with Iran first and Russia second, as if she could actually unseated Putin. She said so in those emails no one talks about. Idiocy. I’m sick of the baiting of Russia and the accusations that all Russian news is propaganda. It’s not, UNLIKE OUR MAINSTREAM. Here’s a good one to think about: The RT (Russia Today) network has been nominated in 18 categories of the New York Festivals awards for the world’s best TV and film work, beating out the BBC and CNN. So there.

      • March 11, 2017 at 13:34

        Further, See Regis Tremblay’s “Je Suis Russia” on YouTube. He just got back about 3 months ago to see the place personally and talk to average Russians, including in Crimea. They told him unequivocally that it was they, the citizens of Crimea, who organized the referendum due to fear of the neo-fascist coup in their capital, Kiev, and no longer wanted to be part of Ukraine. Yes, it was in Russia’s interest,but it was the initiative and procedure by those in Crimea and they rejoiced with the result.

  31. Brendan
    March 9, 2017 at 16:47

    Jill Stein is as guilty as anyone else of anti-Russian propaganda. Her petition for a recount in Wisconsin was based on the same old fake news of Russian hacking of the presidential election. It seems that she jumped on that bandwagon in order to raise her own profile.

    If MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow suspects Stein of being too friendly with the Kremlin, then Maddow hasn’t been reading the news lately.

  32. March 9, 2017 at 16:18

    Pathetic, delusional Democrats! Brad’s point about Bernie important, disappointing he’s still playing into their hands, supposedly back to Independent? RT absolutely right that elections do not reflect will of Americans, low turnout shows that clearly. How many years since McCarthy era, well over half a century? And who decided that Russia, which today is not the USSR, is our enemy? Barack Obama and the Neocons!

    • col
      March 9, 2017 at 20:16

      Jessica, ” And who decided that Russia, which today is not the USSR, is our enemy? Barack Obama and the Neocons!”
      That’s the million dollar question, but why? Really if this outcome had not occurred I don’t know how much mental anguish/mental disease which could be avoided. I am cracking under the pressure. I can be seen walking the beach downcast and muttering to myself.

  33. Jay
    March 9, 2017 at 15:11

    And the other problem with that delusional Rozsa essay in Salon was that he, Rozsa, ignored the fact that Johnson out polled Stein in the voting booths, and Johnson voters weren’t going to vote for Hillary–while a few Stein voters would have if there’d been no Green candidate.

    • ms_xeno
      March 10, 2017 at 23:04

      The article overlooks that other Left 3rd Party candidates were on ballots in several states: LaRiva, Moorehead, & Soltysik were all possibilities, as was leaving that top line blank or doing a write-in. There’s no way in hell I would have voted for HRC under *any* circumstance, personally.

      • March 11, 2017 at 13:26

        Same here, No way!

  34. March 9, 2017 at 13:22

    stein did list hacking in her michigan recount brief. the ruling against her brief stated that hacking was unlikely.

      March 10, 2017 at 03:01


      Yes, she did mention the possibility of hacking as an excuse to raise over 1 MILLION DOLLARS that she can use, according to her, any way she wishes. Jill Stein has learned a few tricks from the Queen of Chaos—even though she gave up all of her green values as she in fact support a recount that could only work to Hilliar’s advantage.

      • D5-5
        March 10, 2017 at 13:58

        This comment underestimates Jill Stein considerably. The hacking claims came up on Russia hacking the election in the immediate aftermath of Trump’s shocking win. Stein decided to go to the three crucial states involved, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania I believe, and seek a recount. Her position was: if we can’t trust election results where are we. We need to check here, she maintained, as a start on the reliability of the system. This is an entirely decent position. Following came all the slamming, which you are now furthering, with language such as “tricks” etc. Let’s have some evidence that the money raised was in some way illegitimate versus your assuming this with your snark here.

        • March 11, 2017 at 13:24

          Thank you D5-5 for that response. Jill’s integrity remains fully intact. As you may know investigative reporter Greg Palast accompanied Jill during her time-constrained voter recount that was hampered on all sides by the established order which seeks to contain all political expression with the Demagogues and Repugnants. What she uncovered was a shipload of fraudulent and unethical in the voting procedures that would make a banana republic blush. The system is, like a very old apple, rotten, and one can no more reform it than you can the apple. In fact, I call reforming the Dems, “dancing with a corpse.” I have personally met with Jill on a number of occasions, being a Green since 1989, and find her to be an amazing leader–courageous, honest, bold, radical (in the original sense) and highly intelligent. She in fact, was far more “qualified” to give honest and peaceful direction to the country than any of the corporate elite, who ought to be given a political enema. No doubt most of that money came from Dems who were clutching at straws that somehow Trump’s electoral victory could be overturned. Jill has said that any money left over would be used for electoral reform purposes. I am confident that she will do just that.

    • March 11, 2017 at 09:30

      I believe Stein did not list russian hacking in her brief, just generic hacking. kerry did lose ohio 2004 due to michael collin’s hacking the returns for Rove.

  35. Bill Bodden
    March 9, 2017 at 13:12

    In line with this new McCarthyism, a Jan. 6 report by the Director of National Intelligence on alleged Russian interference in U.S. politics included a seven-page appendix, dating from 2012, that accused RT of portraying “the US electoral process as undemocratic.”

    The Director of National Intelligence? Was that James Clapper? Was that the same James Clapper who blatantly lied to the senate intelligence (?) committee? Well, if he accused RT of portraying “the US electoral process as undemocratic” we can take that as an indisputable fact. On the other hand, there appeared to be a consensus among somewhere around a third of eligible voters in the U.S. that believed Clinton and Trump were the two worst presidential candidates ever, and it is a good bet many of those sensible people never heard of or watched it.

  36. Bill Bodden
    March 9, 2017 at 13:00

    Despite these international commitments, the Democrats have doubled down on their attacks against Stein in the months since the election, now claiming that not only did she spoil the election by siphoning votes from Clinton, but that she may have done so at the bidding of Russian President Vladimir Putin – never mind the fact that Greens have been running presidential candidates in every U.S. election since 1996.

    How much more pathetic can the oligarchs of the un-Democratic party and their deplorables become? Time will tell. Give ’em another Friedman Unit.

  37. Bill Bodden
    March 9, 2017 at 12:53

    if the Stein voters in those three states had all supported Clinton instead of Trump,

    The Democrats would do well to explain to themselves why so many voters preferred Jill Stein over the Queen of Chaos, but they probably don’t have the sense or guts to do so.

    • Zhu
      March 12, 2017 at 19:09

      Members of The First Church of Hillary (Fundamentalist) are not capable of asking such questions.

  38. bozhidar balkas
    March 9, 2017 at 12:44

    What to expect from one the most artificial regions; oops, a fake country, but ONLY a few silly and carefully selected leaks?

    More, but few, selected leaks as it befits an oligarchic rule; oops democracy!
    In a fully developed democracy there would be nothing but leaks [revelations]; the more the better.

    But, of course, not ever in a fake country; which is very miscegenational, multiracial, very razzophobic/ethnophobic; with fake media, fake banks, fake CIA/FBI, fake Congress/WH/judiciary/healthcare/education; divided in at least ten or more cliques or classes/castes and ruled with an iron fist by the two top classes.

    Sorry folks for very bad news. Maybe i will have much better news for the ‘lower-valued’ bipeds of the planet in a millennium or two? Here’s hoping!

    • Zhu
      March 12, 2017 at 19:08

      Nope. In a millenium. Homo Sapiens will be as extinct as the trilobite.

    • Jude Rene Montarsi
      March 13, 2017 at 02:16

      Spot on Bozhidar!

  39. Joe L.
    March 9, 2017 at 12:39

    Good for Jill Stein. I mean how dare she go to promote peace meanwhile the Democrats and Republicans push for more war – tsk… tsk… Gotta keep the military industrial complex going so that the US can build more military bases to surround their “enemies” and dominate the rest of the world. At least someone has balls to stand up against the MIC and for me the Democrats just look worse by the day by not taking responsibility for their own loss by putting up an awful candidate meanwhile railroading the good candidate that they had while also pointing fingers at everyone else for their loss. Tell me could you respect a neighbour or friend that took no responsibility for their own actions but instead points to everyone else as being guilty – I couldn’t and the whole Democratic Party should be ashamed of itself.

  40. March 9, 2017 at 12:38

    putin made orwell write 1984.

  41. evelync
    March 9, 2017 at 11:37


    “The fact is, many of these voters were turned off by Clinton’s hawkishness, perceived ethical lapses and close Wall Street ties, and would have never voted for her regardless of whether there was a third party alternative or not. Some would have stayed home, and others might have actually voted for Trump.”


    As a retired Democratic election judge and precinct chair and a Bernie supporter, when the Obama/Clinton/Biden establishment wing of the party failed to support Keith Ellison for Party Chair, it was clear that they didn’t understand anything about the results of the election. And I am wondering whether at this point it would indeed be the best thing for Bernie to do to follow Brad Owen’s advice…
    The establishment chose Tom Perez for DNC chair; a man who failed to stop the banks from illegally foreclosing on active duty soldiers:

    Had they supported Keith they would have shown they understood and learned their lesson. They keep reaching for scapegoats because they can’t face the truth that they lost in November because they ran a weak candidate who was not trusted because she was aligned with 30 years of domestic and foreign policy that led to endless regime change wars and ruthless domestic banking/housing/job related policies that favored the oligarchs who financed their campaigns.
    This attack on Jill Stein proves, once again, that the Democratic establishment is in denial and/or they have no respect for the voters’ intelligence.

    • Bill Bodden
      March 9, 2017 at 15:08

      Had they supported Keith they would have shown they understood and learned their lesson.

      Had they supported Keith they would have broken a very long-standing practice of excluding progressives from positions of influence within the party.

    • geoff
      March 9, 2017 at 19:00

      thank you for your work- ‘hillary’s ethical lapses’?- really, try fraud in her foundations (go to charles k. ortel), fraud in her election results with bernie and her criminal activity in the state dept concerning ‘payments for access’. her lies to congress and her lies to fbi director comey. bernie’s rational by sticking to hillary was- ‘we cant let trump get elected’ he should have stuck to his principles and now i doubt very much he can do that. he is a major disappointment. most people do not understand how difficult it is, for a third party candidate, to get on the ballot. there are no uniform laws and requirements. many states are difficult on purpose. the democratic party and the republican party need to expire. perhaps they will implode soon. they have hurt the people.

  42. Joe Tedesky
    March 9, 2017 at 11:15

    Wow, what a price for Americans to have to pay all because Hillary loss.

  43. Brad Owen
    March 9, 2017 at 11:00

    Darn. Now I’ll have to increase my monthly Green Party donation for March from 10$ to 20$.The sooner we can destroy the D-Party, the better off the World will, while the R-Party self-destructs from its’ outrageously ridiculous policies. Come on Bernie; step out from the Party of War Criminals and form a new Party for your 13 million donors. THEN I’ll ask the Greens to fold itself into your new Party. Their ideas for policies are excellent, but only YOU hold the bullhorn, Bernie, and have a commanding platform from which to speak.

    • Stephen Verchinski
      March 13, 2017 at 03:55


  44. Joe_the_Socialist
    March 9, 2017 at 10:33
    • Becky G.
      March 11, 2017 at 17:36

      Thank you for the link

Comments are closed.