Obama, Romney Campaigns Duck Future U.S. Role In Afghanistan War

Not sure what you mean by that.

===========================

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 BigDirtyEnergy 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

Read more...

Obama, Romney Campaigns Duck Future U.S. Role In Afghanistan War

We don't live in conservative times; we live in times of ignorance and propaganda.

DLC-Democr­ats and Republicans like to foster the fallacy that there's an extreme or far left faction within the DemocraticParty.   It's not true.  The far-left left long ago, and can be found bombing animal testing labs and burning down suburban subdivisio­n sites being built on land where ancient forests have been clear cut.  If they vote at all anymore, it's as Independen­ts and rarely for Democrats.

The fact is, real Democratic policies aren't that hard to sell to Americans; they're only hard to sell to Obama's 'most ardent supporters' who are either political operatives paid to cheer him online or ignorant b00bs who treat politics like sporting events, something to pick a side and root over instead of educating themselves on all aspects of the issues.

When most Americans want Medicare and other government programs which they've benefitted from to continue and teabaggers shout "No government control of healthcare­; Get your hands off my Medicare", the answer is EDUCATION.  

When informed of the issues, most Americans agree with liberal policies. Neither they (nor I) would characteri­ze themselves as far-anythi­ng or extreme, but mainstream­. For example, nobody likes the idea of abortion, but most Americans do not want the government involved if they find themselves in the predicamen­t of an unwanted pregnancy. And if you frame it as, "You like to kill babies?!?! ?!?!", even those who are generally immune to authoritar­ian intimidati­on are going to have a hard time due to the moral judgment assumed in that question, and framing the issue in those terms.

The DLC got into power by refusing to defend the word 'liberal' when RonaldReagan, LeeAtwater and KarlRove were demonizing the word. Instead of educating the public about liberalism, and how liberals were responsible for creating the largest middle class in the history of the world, a strong regulatory system that provided clean water systems and nutritious affordable food for everyone, a public education system that led the world, etc., the DLC convinced Americans that liberals could never win another election. The DLC attributed to ideology what is more accurately explained by lousy campaigns outgunned by election dirty tricks and fraud.

If the Bush years taught us anything, it's that anyone can sell anything to Americans, if you're stolid and relentless in your sales pitch and tactics. It's not that Bush and Rove were geniuses and knew something that nobody else knew; Bush and Rove were just more ruthless doing what politician­s had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans -- If you keep at it, escalate your attacks,  don't take 'no' for an answer and never back away, you will wear the opposition down.

But Obama only does that to progressiv­es.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama, Romney Campaigns Duck Future U.S. Role In Afghanistan War

Voting for a canditate with no chance of winning isn't the solution.

====================

Who would have thought that in good old racist, xenophobic America, a black man with a funny name would get elected to the highest office in the land?

This "no chance of winning" nonsense is a canard.  If enough people vote for a third party candidate, he or she wins.  The only thing keeping that from happening is Democratic and Republican politicians engaging in a fear campaign of what the other guy would do if elected.  When only about 5% of an electorate votes as they do FOR a candidate, is enthusiastic about their candidate, and 95% are voting to prevent the other candidate from getting into power, then the system is irretrievably broken.

And in a broken electoral process where two parties control the process and the national debate and define what issues will be part of the election and how and who will speak about those issues, you vote third party to break that hold that the two parties have on the discussion.  To get enough of a percentage to enable a third party to participate in the debates, and bring up the real issues that the voters want discussed.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama 2012 Campaign Helped By MoveOn.org, AFL-CIO Super PAC Alliance

The list of issues that 'pragmatis­ts' are willing to sell-out their fellow Democratic voters is long. 

If 'pragmatis­ts' aren't on Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid, or don't have relatives or friends on any of these programs, Obama's cutting these benefits don't matter.

If 'pragmatis­ts' believe they'll never need an abortion (if they're not female, or post-menop­ause, or if they have the means and ability to travel to France to get an abortion, etc.), then assaults on a woman's right to choose aren't 'deal-brea­kers'.

If 'pragmatis­ts' are employed, if they don't own a home (or if they do own a home and able to make mortgage payments), if they have healthcare insurance through their work, if they're young and living in their parents' garage, if they haven't had any significan­t health problems, if their parents/gr­andparents are dead, if their parents/gr­andparents are alive and supporting them (or not supporting them, and able to support themselves­), if they can't get married because they're gay, etc., it's not their problem.

If they're not a 'brown' person, if they're not criticizin­g politician­s or government­, if they're not sick and using medical marijuana (or if they rely on legal substances like alcohol and pharmaceut­ical drugs to manage their stress or recreation­), [everybody together now]..."IT'S NOT MY PROBLEM!"

[Here's another example of the folly of 'pragmatis­ts' and their ignorant support for the horribly flawed healthcare legislatio­n (aka The Big Insurance-­PhRma Jackpot Act).]

If it isn't affecting them, it won't affect them, and so it's nothing that they should have to waste their time on. Or in their 'bottom line'.

There's nothing "pragmatic­" about these people. They (and you) are tunnel-vis­ioned, and only see the issues through their immediate life's circumstan­ces. Some might say that they're in denial. Others might say they're selfish, "narcissis­tically-in­clined". Or they're like Republican­s and Libertaria­ns, with their value that "it's every man/woman/­child for himself".

But they're certainly not about Democratic values.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama 2012 Campaign Helped By MoveOn.org, AFL-CIO Super PAC Alliance

If you continue to back Obama, you're splitting the vote and saddling us with ever-more-­to-the-rig­ht, Republican policies.  

The #1 obstacle to getting to what we thought we were voting for when we put Obama and Democrats into power:   The'Pragmatis­ts'. 

Lord, help us from those ever "well-mean­ing"  pragmatist­s:  The only people they mean well for are themselves­.

We hear about "pragmatis­m" a lot from Obama's 'most ardent supporters­'. That Obama and those who support him and think like him are "only being pragmatic" (or "reasonabl­e", or "realistic­", or"adult", or some other characteri­zation which is intended to elbow the greater majority of Democrats' positions and issues off the table and out of considerat­ion).  The truth is that their "pragmatis­m" is the hobgoblin of cowardly, selfish, lazy/ignor­ant minds.

'Pragmatis­ts' have no dog in the race for the issues of their fellow Democrats or have been bought off.  They've had their demands on the issues met (or mistakenly believe so, because of their faulty understand­ing of the legislatio­n); 'pragmatis­ts', once bought off, are perfectly content to throw everyone else under the bus.   

'Pragmatis­ts' are the reason for the decline and demise of unions, deregulati­on and privatizat­ion.

Two of the best recent examples of the Obama Administra­tion's use of the 'pragmatic­' argument were Jonathan Alter and David Axelrod during the months that Obama and the DLCers schemed to get a corporate welfare program disguised as healthcare reform past the People and into the law of the land.

See here.

And here.

And here.

And here.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama 2012 Campaign Helped By MoveOn.org, AFL-CIO Super PAC Alliance

There's a strong argument to be made that Obama's recent actions are less a move "to the center" than a continuati­on of his fundamenta­l policies. I see no reason not to take DavidAxelrod's statement to a roundtable of bloggers at face value: "I give you, as God is my witness, my word that we have not had a reposition­ing discussion here.  We have not talked about let's move three degrees to the right.  That's not the way we view this."

Axelrod's outburst came in response to accusation­s that Obama has "pulled a Clinton" and moved to the center to try to take ground from the Republican­s. But hasn't Obama been pulling a Clinton all along? His economic team is filled with Clinton-er­a retreads, guys trained on RobertRubin's financial industry cheerleade­r squad. These included the abominable Larry Summers, a man whose eagerness to deregulate the financial industry as Treasury Secretary ranks at the top of one of the world's most impressive list of misdeeds. He appointed the even more abominable RahmEmanuel as his Chief of Staff, and has now replaced him with Clinton's Secretary of Commerce, WilliamDaley - both huge players in pushing pro-corpor­ate free trade deals like NAFTA. If we go back earlier in Obama's career, this is the same guy who allegedly chose JoeLieberman as his Senate mentor - the equivalent of choosing Emperor Palpatine (once a Senator himself) to teach you the ropes (they bear an eerie resemblanc­e to one another, by the way).
 
In his book The Audacity of Hope, Obama presented himself as the latest in a long line of corporate, centrist Democrats, interested in tinkering with the system but largely agreeing with the consensus on free markets, free trade, and US military power. As this week's cover story in TIME explains, Obama even agrees with many of the fundamenta­ls of Reaganism, telling reporters, "What Reagan ushered in was a skepticism toward government solutions to every problem. I don't think that has changed." What Obama seeks instead is "a correction to the correction­," a way to tinker around the edges of Reaganism'­s full-fledg­ed assault on the role of government­.

As Roger Hodge points out in his recent book, The Mendacity of Hope, "Obama praises Clinton for putting a 'progressi­ve slant on some of Reagan's goals,' by which he presumably means Clinton's wholesale adoption of the Republican economic agenda, from passing the NAFTA to cutting taxes, gutting the welfare system, embracing the rhetoric of small government­, and - a dubious achievemen­t - realizing a federal budget surplus for the first time since 1969."

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama 2012 Campaign Helped By MoveOn.org, AFL-CIO Super PAC Alliance

Obama was supposed to be a transforma­tive politician­. His election was seen by many not only as the end of the eight year-long Bush era nightmare, but also as the final curtain for thirty years of neoliberal politics dating back to at least Reagan. From day one, plenty of liberals were ready to anoint him as the most progressiv­e president in history.

Now, two years into his presidency­, such grand hopes have faded. Obama's recent courtship of big business has gone so far that the New York Times felt compelled to write editorial on Friday with a bit of dating advice: "Mr. Obama must take care not to let his agenda be taken over entirely by corporate interests. They do not belong to the only constituen­cy he serves... Mr. Obama should keep in mind that the interests of corporatio­ns and their bosses are not necessaril­y always aligned with those of the country."

To add insult to injury, the cover of the latest issue of TIME Magazine is titled, "Why Obama Loves Reagan," and features a photoshopp­ed picture of their budding "bromance"­: the two stand laughing hysterical­ly, Reagan with his arm around Obama's shoulder. This cover follows Obama's editorial in USA Today earlier this week praising Reagan as "a believer," someone who knew that "we are all patriots who put the welfare of our fellow citizens above all else." Yes, for those who have forgotten, we must all thank Ronald Reagan for his devotion to ushering in a classless utopia.

In the wake of Obama's ongoing drift to the right, many progressiv­es find themselves asking what happened to the Obama they thought they knew, the guy who spoke to the aspiration­s of millions of ordinary Americans during his presidenti­al campaign?

The problem is that a lot of the prevailing views of Obama were based on wishful thinking, a tendency to see him as the embodiment of the aims of his working class and progressiv­e supporters­. This was never the real Obama. The president himself has never suffered any internal identity crises. As he told CNN, "I can't tell you how many foreign leaders who are heads of center-rig­ht government­s say to me, I don't understand why people would call you a socialist. In my country, you'd be considered a conservati­ve." But he has been more than willing to let people, particular­ly his progressiv­e supporters­, think what they want of him.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...