#2 - The Supreme Court gave us Bush-Cheney, not Nader's voters.
#3 - There is no escaping the Bush-Cheney legacy when the Democratic president and the Democratic members of Congress aren't interested in repealing Bush-Cheney policies and legislation and reinstating legislation like Glass-Steagall. It's not on Obama's or the Democratic Party's agenda.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
#1 - You have no idea what kind of a PresidentGore would have made. What Gore would or wouldn't have done isn't knowable. Gore was a hawk on Iraq in 1991, one of only 10 Democrats to vote in favor of the GulfWar. He complained bitterly that GeorgeHWBush didn't march into Baghdad and Gore supported legislation aimed at rooting out SaddamHussein.
If Gore was willing to do it in 1991, over Saddam's invasion of Kuwaite after Kuwaite had been slant-drilling Iraq's oil and after GeorgeHWBush's ambassador to Iraq told Saddam that we'd have no problem if he invaded Kuwaite, you don't believe Gore would've done it in 2003 over WMD? And after 9/11? Even BillClinton was on board for it, and Clinton knew the truth, what BS it was.
Most people who say that about Gore believe him to be of noble character. He's a politician, not unlike the rest of them. Worse yet, he's a legacy, a second generation, who grew up in that culture. He was chosen to run with Clinton not to balance the ticket from the left, but from the right. The choices he made throughout his life show the same sense of entitlement that most Washington insiders display. And how he's chosen to respond (not at all) to the charges about his own entitlement and hypocrisy (Occidental, carbon shares, his lavish 10,000-square-foot that uses more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, the 6,500 square foot villa in California with 6 fireplaces, etc.).
What's known is that his instincts and efforts on how to go up against the powers-that-be were either for show or lame and inept (as they continue to be at CurrentTV). The same powers-that-be that got us into that war also took his lawfully elected presidency from him. And after running one of the worst, tone-deaf campaigns in modern history. The outcome of that election is the only thing keeping Gore's campaign from being placed in the 'Ridicule'-file with Dukakis's and Romney's.
See here, here and here. And here - WTF was Gore thinking?
Gore picked the wrong man (WarrenChristopher) to face off with JimBaker in the post-election Florida fight. While Gore, Christopher and Democrats were playing baseball, Bush, Baker and Republicans were playing football. How did Gore not see that?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Obama's the more effective of the two evils. More effective on behalf of the corporate elites. And that makes him far more dangerous.
Obama has achieved what Bush-Cheney only dreamt about and couldn't get done: A long war with no Democratic voter opposition, massive giveaways to Big Dirty Energy with no Democratic voter opposition, continuation of Bush's tax cuts, etc.
Come the lame duck session after the election, Obama will embrace Simpson-Bowles (the groundwork has been laid, with Democratic leaders already saying they'll get behind it) to cut Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, etc.
Obama's been more effective for realizing Republicans' dreams than a Republican (or an amateurish, politically, Mitt Romney-Paul Rand administration) could be with Democratic voters pressuring their elected representatives to resist GOP plans.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
In the debates, Obama admitted he agreed with Romney on:
1. Social Security.
2. Corporate Taxes.
Both said they will cut corporate taxes further. As though corporations are suffering from high taxes and low profits, and there is plenty of money at the state and local levels.
3. Bowles-Simpson.
Obama said he is going to push for Bowles-Simpson. And Romney praised Bowles-Simpson a few times. Imagine, a Democrat is going to push for this plan to undermine the social safety net on those who can least afford it, while further reducing taxes for the top income earners, who are already sitting on piles (and growing piles) of money, while not creating jobs. A Democrat.
Obama has the same type of economic plan as the Republicans on the radical right; they just differ slightly in degrees. Both will strangle us, one slightly slower than the other.
Both are out to radically restructure the progressive state that has been developed since FDR: undermine and curtail the social safety net, while restructuring taxes further in favor of the top income earners (proposed by Bowles-Simpson, which Obama said he will push for). This is further redistributing income upwards, in favor of the top income earners. Reckless and irresponsible and unconscionable. But the only ones to call Obama out on it are those of us on the left, who refuse to go quietly into that good night.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
If you didn't or wouldn't have voted for Nixon or Reagan, you shouldn't be voting for Obama.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
If he had won in 2008, President McCain would have extended the Bush tax cuts, tried to stay in Iraq beyond Bush’s agreement, bombed Libya, and expanded the war in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, and appointed Monsanto-friendly people to the Supreme Court and the FDA, and many of us would be saying how a President Obama would never have done that.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
The only way to waste your vote is by not voting.
Those claiming that you wasted your vote just don’t like the way you voted.Fu Screw 'em.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
It's not enough that I should vote as you tell me to vote, but I should also now parrot Michael Moore's sentiments?
12% of Florida's registered Democrats voted for Bush, yet they escape criticism. Half of all registered Democrats didn't bother to vote at all, and yet not a peep out of you. Every third-party candidate received enough votes in Florida to have cost Al Gore the election, but I don't see you condemning them. Had the Democratic Party officials in Florida done their job and actually reviewed Theresa LaPore's ballot design, more than enough Democratic voters would have filled out their ballots accurately and not voted for Pat Buchanan.
Gore lost 3 traditionally Democratic voting states (his home state of Tennessee, Bill Clinton's home state of Arkansas, and W. Virginia), any one of which would have put him over the top and he wouldn't have needed Florida, yet you continue to spout the DLC talking point designed to disempower those trying to hold Democratic politicians to Democratic Party policies (i.e., the 99%'s best interests).
Whatever the means necessary to get BushCheney into the WhiteHouse would've happened. Had Nader been in the race, had he not in the race, whatever. Had Nader not run, the outcome would've been the same. The powers that be were not going to let Gore win, no matter what, and gamed it innumerable ways.
If the means for getting BushCheney into the White House required a close election and Nader not been running, some other means would've been used.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
By your logic, no crimes should be prosecuted. Not homicides, not robberies, not nothin'.
To begin with, it wouldn't be Obama spending his time -- It would be government offices charged with enforcing the rule of law.
That's how a government based on the rule of law (as opposed to the rule of man/person/royalty/president) operates - By enforcing the laws.
There really is no question about this, nor is it a matter of choice. Each branch of government must be diligent in keeping the other branches in check. You prevent an executive branch's abuse of its power by holding it to account. If you don't, you no longer have a democracy.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
We're not limited to voting for Democrats or Republicans.
Here's a list of all of the candidates running for president.
The old "lesser of two eviIs" argument reeks of denial. Obama's continuing just about all of the BushCheney policies, even going BushCo one better: How do any of Obama's 'most ardent supporters' explain Obama's doctrine that presidents have the right to kill American citizens with no due process, no oversight, and his push for 'indefinite preventive detention' and no transparency of anything a president asserts should be his secret? As a Democrat, I don't know how any Democrat can get behind this.
With Obama's embrace of "austerity", and plans to cut Social Security and Medicare, how can any Democratic voter seriously consider voting for Obama? Just as it took Nixon to go to China", it's going to be a Democratic president to end Social Security.
I listen to Obama's speeches on the stump, about all of the "tough decisions" he's had to make, and wonder how his most ardent supporters continue to support him when those "tough decisions" have been against their own best interests and for the benefit of the 1%.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Apparently 8 years of Bush and Cheney has you supporting their successor, a Democrat-In-Name-Only, who is continuing their policies and giving us Republican legislation. That's what you want more of.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Nader again?
Nader didn't do anything to Gore that HarryBrowne, PatBuchanan, HowardPhillips, et al (other party candidates) didn't also do, yet you don't hear them being blamed. Gore and Bush weren't owed other party's voters, and studies have shown that Nader pulled more votes from Bush than from Gore.
You presume that Nader voters would've voted for Gore (or voted at all) when studies and exit polling have indicated that's not the case.
You blame Nader voters when, had Nader not even run, had he not be in the race, Bush still would've won. Because Republicans had gamed that election more ways than we're ever going to know about. You might as well blame Pat Buchanan with the same vigor and vitriole.
AlGore won. Gore got more votes in Florida. Any way it was counted (and the biggest point that people seem to forget is that there were 179,000 perfectly readable ballots that never got counted), Gore got more votes than Bush.
Whatever the means necessary to get BushCheney into the WhiteHouse would've happened. Had Nader been in the race, had he not in the race, whatever. Had Nader not run, the outcome would've been the same. The powers that be were not going to let Gore win, no matter what, and gamed it innumerable ways.
If the means for getting BushCheney into the WhiteHouse required a close election and Nader not been running, some other means would've been used.
For pity's sake, the CIA was working on GOP absentee ballots in the weeks leading up to election day in Florida. That was the most amazing revelation from the televised court hearings in the post-election days in Florida -- 'CharlesKane' testified to altering absentee ballots in the MartinCounty's Registrar's office in the two week period prior to election day (it's against the law and should render the ballots null and void). When Kane was sworn in, he had to identify himself and give his occupation and employer. Retired CIA. The judge asked him why he was altering the absentee ballots, and he answered "I go where I'm told." Verbatim quote. The judge didn't follow up. There was next to no news coverage of this, and none by the networks.
Have you forgotten JebBush's vote purging scheme?
Have people really forgotten all the different ways that that election was gamed by the GOP? And that's just in Florida. And just the ways that we learned about because of legal proceedings in the post-election days.
There was a coup d'etat in America in 2000. A bIoodless coup, but a coup nonetheless.
And Democrats suppressed investigations, and then screwed over the CongressionalBlackCaucus's attempts to expose that stolen election.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
I wish a third-party candidate had a chance of winning, but he/she doesn't.
If Republicans are such scvm (and I believe they are) and "so dangerous", why isn't Obama investigating and prosecuting them? Why isn't Obama investigating and prosecuting the greatest heist on the People in all history? Why isn't Obama (or Pelosi and Reid for that matter) using every tool in their arsenal to beat Republicans back?
Why are Obama and Democrats continuing the war crimes of Bush & Cheney, and blocking investigations and prosecutions into their crimes?
How does a Democratic president, on the heels of the most criminally corrupt administration in the nation's history, not replace Bush-era US attorneys? Presidents may fire US attorneys, and they do so routinely at the beginning of a new administration. It is unusual to fire US attorneys in mid-term (as Bush did) except in cases of gross misconduct (which wasn’t the case during the BushAdministration). Instead of returning the democracy to the American people, Obama's AttorneyGeneral has US attorneys going after legalized medicinal marijuana in the states and Bush-style obscenity prosecutions.
Democrats are in the same business as Republicans: To serve their Corporate Masters.
I suggest that you consider Democrats and Republicans as working on the same side, as tag relay teams (or like siblings competing for parental approval). 'Good cop/bad cop'. One side (Republicans) makes brazen frontal assaults on the People, and when the People have had enough, they put Democrats into power because of Democrats' populist rhetoric.
Once in power, Democrats consolidate Republicans' gains from previous years, and continue on with Republican policies but renamed, with new advertising campaigns. They throw the People a few bones, but once Democrats leave office, we learn that those bones really weren't what We, the People thought they were.
Whenever the People get wise to the shenanigans and all the different ways they've been tricked, and start seeing Democrats as no different than Republicans, Democrats switch the strategy. They invent new reasons for failing to achieve the People's business.
Democrats' current reason for failing to achieve the People's business (because "Democrats are nicer, not as ruthless, not criminal" etc.) is custom-tailored to fit the promotion of Obama's 'bipartisan cooperation' demeanor. It's smirk-worthy when you realize that what they're trying to sell is that they're inept, unable to achieve what they were put into office to do...And their ineptitude, like that's somehow "a good thing".
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Romney: The Less Effective Evil (Making Obama The MORE Effective Evil):
“Austerity is killing the economy and causing terrible hardships, but [Democrats] didn’t make that case.”
“[Democrats] leapt upon the words which even Romney called “inelegantly stated” and in the process showed their own brand of evil. [Democrats] could have pointed out that Americans should expect decent housing and medical care. They could have noted that there are nations around the world who do provide for their citizens’ basic needs, and that they are more advanced as a result.”
“Instead of shooting fish in the barrel when even conservative pundits piled on the Romney condemnation, they could have advocated for a different conversation about the role of government in our lives. Austerity is killing the economy and causing terrible hardships, but [Democrats] didn’t make that case. Because there are enough Americans with some degree of need for government support, the Romney comments made for great political theater. But if [Democrats] were interested it could have been an opportunity for so much more.”
“Obama proved that he has no more regard for people living on the margins than Romney has when he put Social Security and Medicare on the budget cutting table. He convened a budget deficit commission and packed it with pro-austerity conservatives without anyone in either party having asked him to do so. If he is re-elected he will waste no time in making another grand bargain with the Republicans which will come at the expense of the 47%.”
If Romney wins, the people who vote for Stein or Johnson have absolutely NO RIGHT to complain if we are in shambles after Mitt's tenure. No right whatsoever. If Obama loses, I'm squarely placing blame on the Indie voters.
© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008
Back to TOP
