Nader/Gonzalez '08: That's Still Going On.

• The poster (marc) seems "bitter and resentful," yet his remarks do not constructively focus on any point.

• The previous poster's comment makes no sense. Gonzalez does not claim ending the Iraq war will cure economic woes in the US. Gonzalez points out correctly that with 50% of our current tax dollars going to pay for the Iraq war and war debt, there is a diversion of resources so historic and monumental that there can be no real committment to change or economic stability until we stop throwing all our resources overseas. In a nutshell, we can't save the patient (the US ) until we stop the uncontrolled hemmorageing of resources and tax dollars in Iraq. This is Gonzalez's point and he is right. If the patient is bleeding to death, you stop the bleeding before addressing other "structural" problems. There is currently no re-investment in America. There has been a historic divestment of resrouces in America. Change in government can be measured by our budget committment of where we put our dollars.

• So Matt Gonzalez said in 2004 that the next office he'd run for was one that he could not possibly win. Now he tells Amy Goodman that he and Nader have a plan to win this election. Maybe the small arms fire at PDX by militants across the Columbia River in Vancouver Washington made him bitter and resentful, and he decided to not cling to comfortable remarks made under the pressure cooker of retirement from the Board of Supervisors. And, damn, the economy is melting down due to structural fallacies put in place over the past 40 years, and Gonzalez claims that ending the war would fix the economy, stupid? -marc

TotalComments: 3