 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Should Obama Run in '12???
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Bobert Date: 14 Nov 10 - 07:48 PM I've kinda been thinkin' about this myself for a couple months now but in today's Washington Post (Outlook Section) there is a very thought provokin' article entitled "One & Done" by a couple of Democratic operatives, Patrick Caddell (Jimmy Carter's administration) and Douglas Schoen (Bill Clinton's administration)... They give some very good reason why Obama would go down in history as a great president if he were to announce that he isn't running in '12... This would force the Repubs to participate and if that happens then lots of stuff can be tackled without the same old sandbaggin' that we've seen from the Repubs... It would also force a few of the more obstinate Dems to get with the program... I kind like their thinking... I mean, the way things have evolved in our country it makes no sense for a president to have two terms because the first one gets consumed with campiagnin' for the 2nd term... Case in point... The 2004 election... Would Bush have gone into Iraq if he wasn't trying to position himself with his base for a 2nd term??? Who knows but, like I said, I would love it if Obama just had the balls to say, "Hey, ya'll... I ain't runnin' so now lets get down to America's business"... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 14 Nov 10 - 07:54 PM He should have withdrawn and let Hillary have it in 2008. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Susu's Hubby Date: 14 Nov 10 - 08:08 PM I think Obama should be a stand up guy and run on his record...anything less is an admit of total failure of his first term...it's as if some dems are saying now....The heat's too high...why don't we step out of the kitchen...just sayin... Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Ebbie Date: 14 Nov 10 - 08:08 PM Good lord! Why? If he wants another term I hope he runs. I wouldn't blame him at all if he does not. The one thing in which this administration has failed to this point, imo, lies in not better publicising their successes. Instead, some - many?- people think their taxes have gone up, that the bali outs haven't helped, that they are not paying ror themselves, that the health reform act, incomplete as it is, is not an improvement on what we had, that insurance for those in school is not more inclusive, that the drug industry is not being shaken up. Lots of things. I still think that the presidency should be comprised of a triumvirate |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: gnu Date: 14 Nov 10 - 08:13 PM Why bother? The populace has voted in favour of the nut cases that subvert the people... better for him to fuck off with the pension and the perks and fuck USA. Cut and run. If they don't wanna try to help themselves... fuck em. He's good. Made in the shade. Why bother to try to do any good? Why try to stand up and fight for anyone who turns on you on the middle of the fight? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: katlaughing Date: 14 Nov 10 - 08:15 PM I do, too, Ebbie. And, I also agree with Hubby. People will call him a loser if he doesn't...they wouldn't "get it" if he tried that. Besides it hasn't seemed to work in the past. The only way to change things so campaigning doesn't consume so much is to Fix Congress First, imo. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Susu's Hubby Date: 14 Nov 10 - 08:15 PM I agree with Ebbie....come on President Obama....please run again!!! Nancy Pelosi has the backbone to run again after the outcome of the last election....why don't you?.... Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Ebbie Date: 14 Nov 10 - 08:15 PM On the other hand, gnu, he is not Sarah. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: pdq Date: 14 Nov 10 - 08:25 PM "Should Obama Run in '12??? It depends on how fast he can run. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Joe Offer Date: 14 Nov 10 - 08:32 PM Hey, this guy is a good President, best we've had since Truman (who had popularity problems during his presidency, too). Four years is too short a time to get much accomplished, and yet people expect a President to work miracles in the first thousand days. Take a look at: I had been expecting to lose health insurance coverage soon for my stepson, who's 21 years old. I just confirmation he's now insured until he's 26. Thank you, Barack Obama! So, THERE!!! -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Amos Date: 14 Nov 10 - 08:55 PM I think he should run and win in '12 and again in '16. By that time the dingbats who throw out roadblocks to every decent idea he has put forward will be dead or declined into apathy. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Jim Dixon Date: 14 Nov 10 - 09:39 PM Here's the article that Bobert referred to in the opening message: One & Done By Douglas E. Schoen and Patrick H. Caddell Sunday, November 14, 2010 The Washington Post I haven't read it yet, so I will withhold comment until I do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 14 Nov 10 - 09:45 PM I don't think he would have a lot of trouble beating the Glen Beck, Newt Gingrich Republican ticket. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Bobert Date: 14 Nov 10 - 09:47 PM Thank you, Jim... It is a good read and food for thought... I mean, I worked for Obama and generally support him... These are some very difficult times and require leadership... What we've seen from the Repubs is not leadership but some downright unAmerican politics that I have not witnessed in my life time... Yes, I have read about times like these but I must say that the civil rights movement wasn't the clusterfuck that we have now... If Obama were to rob the Repubs of another 2 years of this crap and ***frorce***, yes force them to have to do something other than play games while the country suffers then Obama will go down in history as one of the best ever... He said he'd rather be a good one-term president than a mediocre two termer... Here's his chance... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Genie Date: 14 Nov 10 - 11:39 PM Obama may well be our best Presidential option in 2012, but I find myself wishing he would have the guts to BE a one-termer if that's what it takes to stand up for the kinds of principles and policies he campaigned on. I don't think tacking to the so-called "center" is going to get him re-elected in 2012 anyway or help the Democrats stay viable in Congress either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 14 Nov 10 - 11:53 PM If Obama extends the tax cuts for the rich, I don't think I will be able to work for him or donate to him again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Little Hawk Date: 15 Nov 10 - 12:49 AM And I wouldn't blame you one bit, Jack. I think there's a strong case to be made for having only one-term presidents instead of always trying for 2-term presidents. That way their first term would not become utterly compromised by them jockeying for best position to win the next election, and they could just maybe for once act according to principles rather than according to expediency. As for the article, I think it makes some good points, but I do not think there's any justification for cutting "entitlements" (meaning stuff like social security). Those aren't entitlements at all...they are absolutely necessary and vital forms of insurance and protection that should be given to people in any modern and responsible society. The one thing that is genuinely an entitlement and that should be cut is the massive expenditure on the military-industrial complex, which clearly feels that it is entitled to bloated funding which outweighs all the military spending of all the other nations in the world put together. THAT's an entitlement. That should be cut. The troops should be brought home. The occupied lands should be put back under their own sovereignty by their own people. The USA should stop thinking it has any right to pre-emptively attack anyone, because no country has such a right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: J-boy Date: 15 Nov 10 - 12:57 AM He can run pretty fast. He played basketball and his dad was a Kenyan. I also hear running keeps you in shape. Not that I would know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: DougR Date: 15 Nov 10 - 01:00 AM Well, I certainly hope he will! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Little Hawk Date: 15 Nov 10 - 01:06 AM If he did, Doug, you would quickly have to start working on hating the next Democrat who runs for president... ;-) And I bet you could manage that just fine. Think how bereft your loyal (Democratic) opposition is now that they don't have George Bush to bitch about fulltime anymore...and you'll maybe get what I mean about how bereft you would be for a short time with Obama retired from the scene. You'd be like the friggin' coyote with no road runner! Like Sylvester without Tweety Bird! But, hey....Hillary! Think about that, Doug. There are yet great possibilities ahead upon which to focus your political hostility and scorn. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Genie Date: 15 Nov 10 - 01:48 AM And Social Security isn't really an "entitlement program anyway, and I wish the politicians, including the Democrats, would quit calling it that. If Obama's the Democratic nominee in 2012, I'll almost certainly vote for him unless there's a really viable 3rd-party candidate, which is highly unlikely. But the liberal/progressive base who largely stayed home this November 2 aren't likely to show up in bigger numbers in 2010 if Obama and the Congressional Dems insist on moving to the "right" and calling it "the center." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Bobert Date: 15 Nov 10 - 07:02 AM The problem with both Social Security and Medicare is two fold... They are expensive and underfunded... As people live longer and go around saying that 60 is the "new 50" it means that folks will be on it longer and it also means that alot of folks will be retiring when they are still in fine shape to continue working... (That will get the howlers out, Boberdz... We thought you were a progressive...) I am a progressive but that doesn't mean that I'm going to just take a stand that everything on our menu is just fine but just needs more money from the wealthy... Speaking of the wealthy, unless progressives see them become involved then it's going to be a hard sell (like impossible) to the progressive side for any changes in Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid... There needs to be movement on both sides... Greater finacial participation from the rich in exchange foe some tinkering on the other end, which could include raising the retirement age by a year or so... One other thing that the government could do to make Medicare more solvent would be to hire more claims people who acted more like private insurance claims people who understand tyhe meaning of the word no... Too much outright Medicare fraud and too much over-charging by legit providers... I mean, no one is going to be real happy if we do fix some broken stuff... But that will mean that it was prolly done correctly... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: kendall Date: 15 Nov 10 - 07:24 AM Hillary and Sara! Canada, here I come! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Ron Davies Date: 15 Nov 10 - 07:45 AM "if Obama extends the tax cuts for the rich..." That's the crux of his problem. He will need his base--especially since if Sarah wins the Republican nomination, she will damn sure have hers. But if his base is so incredibly shortsighted and self-destructive as to not work for him--as well as voting for him--they will have nobody but themselves to blame for 4 years or more under Sarah's regime---or that of Pawlenty, Gingrich, Romney, or whoever else the Republicans pick. Because you can bet that nobody else--including Hillary--will be able to marshall the sort of passionate support across all ethnic groups and ages-- that President Obama had in his 2008 run. And as far as "tax cuts for the rich"---he's already being deserted by Democratic Senators and Congressmen on this. If he signs a bill extending tax cuts for all taxpayers and his erstwhile supporters sit on their hands as a result of it, that will show just how petty and shortsighted they can be. It's not as if it was his proposal to extend tax cuts for the rich. He has been more ambitious--and done more for the "progressive agenda"-- than anybody since FDR. Health care reform, in particular, is a work in progress. Only in the Left's dreams would a perfect system have sprung forth from Obama's forehead. But nobody has ever accused the Left of being sensible. If they were, there would never have been a Nader candidacy. Nor would there have been a big push for things like removing the 10 Commandments from courthouses, removing "under God" from the Pledge, etc--which did nothing but bring out the other side in force, very likely making the difference in 2004. Issue here is, of course, as I've mentioned before, that in running for a second term your main selling point has to be competence, not charisma. And the president will always be judged on the economy (despite the fact that he has limited leverage over it)--unless there is a hot war going on, in which case that may well be paramount. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Nov 10 - 08:20 AM "I am a progressive but that doesn't mean that I'm going to just take a stand that everything on our menu is just fine but just needs more money from the wealthy..." HALLELUYAH!!!!! Now, if we can get the present administration to feel this way... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: MarkS Date: 15 Nov 10 - 08:28 AM Sympathy for Obama kind of evaporated after I read of the waivers given to companies and unions, excusing them from participating in the new health care plan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Bobert Date: 15 Nov 10 - 08:34 AM I don't believe that the Obama administration is all that steeped in liberalism, bruce... It's just that if you are getting your news from FOX and reading only the op-eds in the Post by Gerson, Will or Klodhopper then it must seem that way... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Richard Bridge Date: 15 Nov 10 - 08:40 AM Funny, I thought an entitlement was something you were entitled to. Amazing how teapublicans can use virtuous terms as epithets. When I hear any significant and genuine attempt by the teapublicans to work with the democrats on any sort of genuine middle ground (not simply teapublican theft with different names) I'll consider whether the democrats might sensibly co-operate with the nutters. Until then I regret that Obama did not go in loaded for bear, but still consider him a better bet than any of the nutjob neanderthals the teapublicans can conjure up |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: GUEST,Neil D Date: 15 Nov 10 - 10:28 AM From: Jack the Sailor Date: 14 Nov 10 - 11:53 PM If Obama extends the tax cuts for the rich, I don't think I will be able to work for him or donate to him again. Sorry Jack but it's a done deal. But true progressives in this country have always had to hold their noses and VOTE LOTE because true progressives have no chance at being president, think Dennis K. But a middle of the road moderate Democrat is still better by far than anything that can win a Republican primary these days. And Schoen and Caddell are yellow dog defeatists. If job growth continues to lag, and it will if the corporate banking system determines that winning one house wasn't enough, then we could lose the senate in 2012. Then keeping the White House and it's veto power could be the only barrier against the most brutal economic attack on the working class in my lifetime. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Wesley S Date: 15 Nov 10 - 11:10 AM If the Republician Party and the tea party whackos are this pissed off at him then that's proof to me that he's doing a good job. Some of them hate him because he's black - and some hate him because he's gotten a lot of things done. But he hasn't gone far enough to suit me. So I hope he runs again. And I hope Sarah Palin runs against him. Because I don't think she has a chance in hell to get elected. She has a base but it's not big enough to get her elected. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Nov 10 - 02:26 PM Obama is a pretty decent Conservative, as Conservatives go, and you're never going to get anyone to the left of him elected in the USA. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: GUEST,kendall Date: 15 Nov 10 - 02:40 PM I hate to sound like a defeatist, but America and Humpty Dumpty have much in common. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Little Hawk Date: 15 Nov 10 - 03:58 PM Just like the Democrats and Republicans have a lot in common with Tweedledee and Tweedledum. The Tweedledeemocrats and the Tweedledumlicans!!! ;-D And then you have the Mad Hatter Tea Party. It's Malice in Blunderland all over again... Hillary gets to play the White Queen against Sarah's Red Queen. Bill Clinton takes over as the hookha-smoking caterpillar. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Genie Date: 15 Nov 10 - 05:36 PM Ron, I agree that way too many on the left are so stupidly idealistic and/or short-sighted as to sit on their hands and let the far-right Republicans take over - possibly permanently - because they're disappointed in Obama and the Dems and think they'll "teach them a lesson" by doing so. (Or maybe they truly think "there's not an ounce of difference between the Democrats and Republicans" -- something even Ralph Nader now acknowledges is not true.) But if Obama and the Dems cave in and extend the Bush tax cuts even for a year or two, they might as well extend them permanently (as permanently as any legislation ever exists). The Republicans will control the House next term and they will use budget reconciliation to pass another 10-year extension of all those tax cuts if they need to. Then the Dems will have to vote it down in the Senate if they can (but there are enough blue dogs that it will probably pass). Or Obama will have to veto it. Either way, the Dems will still be in the position of "voting to raise taxes." And I don't see that happening. Extending all those tax cuts -- keeping all cap. gains at max. rate of 15%; allowing untaxed inheritance of unlimited $ amounts; keeping top marginal tax rate at 35% -- will extend and exacerbate the deficit by about 4 trillion $ over 10 years. That will force severe cuts in the maintenance of "the commons," including our infrastructure, and greatly widen the increasing gap between the haves and the have nots. Social Security should not be in any way on the chopping block because of the deficit, to which it has not contributed anything. If it needs 'tweaking' temporarily or permanently, that can be done in various ways such as raising the cap on the amount of income that is subject to the "payroll tax." But while the baby boomers are a huge demographic, it doesn't mean that every ensuing generation will be in the same situation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Genie Date: 15 Nov 10 - 05:53 PM Bobert, Those statistics about people living longer are easily misunderstood and often used to justify policies that don't follow from the demographics. People are "living longer" for various reasons, not all of which mean people's productive work life is greater than before. Some of the increase reflects lower death rates across the age spectrum, including infancy, due to infectuous diseases, etc. Those increases in average longevity don't mean a 60-year-old today is likely to live much longer today than s/he would have been in 1950. Some of the increase is also due to medical advances and social programs that keep the frail elderly from dying as early or as often from things like malnutrition, lack of health care, lack of home heating etc. A lot of the elderly in nursing homes today would not last long without that round-the-clock care, and programs like Meals On Wheels and home heating assistance also save the lives of low-income elderly people who live at home. There are a lot of people today who live well beyond their "employable" years and that adds to the extended average lifespan but not necessarily to the extended working lifespan. 60 may be the new 50, but it doesn't necessarily mean that 70 is the new 60 or 80 is the new 70. There are many occupations that require physical strength, agility, and endurance such that even people in their early 60s are at a real disadvantage. Add to that the fact that even very competent and experienced workers today are met with strong age discrimination in hiring, even when they are in their 40s or 50s. If you can't draw Social Security until 70, there's a good chance you're going to use up your IRA funds, unemployment, etc. well before then and have to rely on "welfare" programs such as food stamps. Another drawback to raising the retirement age to 70 is that it would inflate our unemployment numbers. The earlier the older generation retires, the more jobs open for the younger ones. Medicare is a different issue, and it does need adjustments to address fraud and make the system more efficient. Of course, if we had a single-payer system like Canada or some other democratic countries, a lot of the $ that now is wasted in our overall health care system could be but to better use. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Bobert Date: 15 Nov 10 - 06:36 PM Well, Genie... We may as well get used to the idea that we progressives have a tidal wave headed in our direction so if we're going to propose uppin' the cap (presently the 1st $90,000 of income) on the higher income earners we may have to accept a gradual uppin' of the age at which people can get Social Security... I mean, this is going to be a conversation that *is* going to occur whether we like it or not... We are in complete agreement on Medicare, however... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: robomatic Date: 15 Nov 10 - 08:27 PM I think Obama has done pretty good so far. Consider the incredibly brutal/ non-cooperative/ unambiguously hostile reactions he has stimulated in the right and far-right, who accuse him of being Communiist/ Socialist/ Satanist and have nothing whatsoever good to say about him or anything he has done/ tried to do/ talked about doing. The stupid things go beyond our borders to the infantile Berlusconi. Our President has not been perfect, but he was never going to be perfect. He has remained Presidential, cool-headed, he has brought major legislation into being, he has made two good additions to the Supreme Court, and he has not abandoned hope. He is leading us into uncharted waters, and I have every hope he will be elected to a second term and that as we commemmorate the sesquicentennial of the American Civil War, we do so with a great American President who happens to be black. |
|
Subject: Social Security From: Genie Date: 15 Nov 10 - 09:40 PM Bobert, we very well may have to deal with people bringing up the issue of raising the retirement age, but at least we should look at it realistically and fairly. Continuing to work to age 70 is really not a viable option for millions of people who have been replaced in the work force by younger people, who face severe age discrimination ("You're overqualified," etc.), and who are in occupations that really require relatively young, fit bodies (e.g., heavy construction work, telephone linesmen). Heck, the airlines have been trying for years to force competent, experienced pilots to retire so they can hire younger ones and pay them less. And there is the very real issue of what expanding the pool of labor, by upping the retirement age, does to the unemployment rate. I think the biggest 'problem' with Social Security is the tidal wave of plutocratic, anti-populist propaganda against it that is growing and will probably grow even larger now that SCOTUS has given big corporations the green light to pour unlimited funds into spreading such propaganda. Social Security is solvent until 2039 and can pay out 80% of benefits for some years after that even if nothing is done to tweak the system. And if we can get unemployment down and more people paying into the system that will extend its solvency. If the people really understand what Social Security is and how it works, it shouldn't be that hard to garner support for raising the cap on SSI taxable income beyond the current $190k or so. The cap wouldn't have to be totally removed, just raised reasonably to keep up with inflation, etc. And that "lock box" that Al Gore talked about would be a good start towards making sure the Social Security surplus, which is to be saved and to accrue interest, is there to serve the purposes for which it was designed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Bobert Date: 15 Nov 10 - 09:54 PM Well, Genie, I'd love to hold the line... Reality is that the progressives have been clobbered by the Supreme Court, first with Bush v. Gore and now with Citizens United... It is very disheartening and the worst thing about it is that the folks who are voting these people into office are clueless that they are voting against their own interests but by the time they find out it will be too late... Our country is screwed... The rich are corralling wealth at an astounding rate and the rest are left scamblin' for crumbs including the dumbasses who will one day wake up and ask, "What the Hell have we done..." That is why I like the idea of Obama not running again in '12... That would give him instant credibility and if he'd take that and show a little spine he could force the Repubs hand... Maybe in doing that the dumbasses would wake the heck up... One troubling aspect has to do with messaging... Too much is made about Obama not being able to deliver the message but that isn't the situation as much as the right wing controls the microphone and Karl Rove is still running anti-Dem ads even after the election and with Citizens money out there the Repubs can flood the airwaves with negative ads... Like I said, the Supremes have ruined our country... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Ron Davies Date: 15 Nov 10 - 10:26 PM "I don't think she has a chance in hell...." I wonder what it will take to get Mudcatters to stop underestimating the opposition. She has a good chance to get the Republican nomination if she runs--and all signs point to that probability. If you don't think most Republicans will fall in line behind her if she gets the nomination--the Tea Party Republicans will pressure them hard to do so, and they will recognize the famous offer you can't refuse--you are still whistling in the dark. Seems to be a favorite Mudcat pastime. And then it will be all about the economy. And of course about how many disgruntled Mudcatters and others left of center get over their tantrums soon enough to not only vote for President Obama, but also to work for him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Mrrzy Date: 16 Nov 10 - 02:22 PM Just got here, sorry... Q - he's better than Hillary for now Amos - he can't run for a third term, or did I miss the irony? OK, now, back to the thread already in progress. I think it's coca-cola gambit time. He should announce he isn't running, get a lot of stuff done, then at the last minute "come back because the public wants him to" at the height of his popularity for getting all that stuff done, and take the theoretical front runner to run in his stead as his vice-prez, and actually win by a clear majority over the other imbeciles. It would be OK if that VP were Hilary *then* unless they come up with someone who looks better on paper; if Obama loses to her, he can still run in 4 years since he'll only have served one term. Or 8 if Hilary actually gets some stuff done. He's young. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Little Hawk Date: 16 Nov 10 - 03:38 PM "win by a clear majority over the other imbeciles" You sayin' Obama's an imbecile, Mrzzy??? ;-) Your plan sounds like a diabolically clever one to me. A shrewd gambit. I think he should give it a try. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Bobert Date: 16 Nov 10 - 04:38 PM I like it, too... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Genie Date: 16 Nov 10 - 07:24 PM Mrrzzy, you mean Obama should pull a Bret Favre? ; D Bobert, I agree that the "Supremes" have screwed us all - including most of the "Tea Partiers," who won't even allow themselves to see that. But that THE most important reason why I want a Democrat in office for the next 6 to 10 years. As I said above, I wish Obama would ACT as though he expected to be a one-termer and get done what needs to be done and what can be done in the next two years. Ironically, history might have been kinder to GWB if he hadn't had a second term than it's likely to be since he did have one. But that's not the main point. There's a great likelihood that Obama will lose in 2012 if he tacks to the 'middle' and tries to play nice in the sandbox with the Republicans who will keep shoving his face down into it. The Republican base isn't going to support him under any circumstances and they've made him a lightning rod to energize their voters to get to the polls. If Obama's base isn't energized and supportive as they were in 2008, I don't think the M O R "independents" and blue dog Democrats will pull out a win for him. But you're right that he and the Dems - especially the liberals - have a hard time getting a message out to the public uncontaminated. Even when Obama has a press conference or gives a speech or has a rally, what the "news" channels carry is mostly selected sound bites and talking head commentary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Bobert Date: 16 Nov 10 - 08:16 PM ...followed with yet another evening of Republican attack ads... Have you seen the one with the woman walkin' thru the grocery store complaining how "the government" is trying to tell her what she can and can not buy??? The message is clear: (Obama's) government is meddling in yer affairs!!! Horrors... This kind of ad is all about making the current (think Obama here) government's intrusion into your freedom... This ad is still being run every night of the week... Problem is that the government isn't doin' that stuff... But if you show the commercial every day for months what sets in to folks thinkerators is that this government (Obama's) is out to get you... The larger problem is that this commercial is being funded by whom??? Who knows??? The even larger problem is that those of us on the progressive side see this ad as Karl REove bullshit yet we don't have the big corporate donors to buy ads to refute it... That's really what it comes down to here... People have these wierd ideas about what the government is trying to do to them because the corporations want people to be scared of the current (Obama's) government and the progressives don't have the financial means to fight back... I mean, on the $$$$ side, Boss Hog wins a 100 times out of a 100... That sucks big time and will only get our country in worse shape with way too many people absorbing Boss Hog's message... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Mrrzy Date: 16 Nov 10 - 08:50 PM I predicted it about Coke, too, so let's see! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: kendall Date: 17 Nov 10 - 07:38 PM He could always start another war to guarantee a second term; it worked for Bush. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Nov 10 - 08:17 PM Abso-fuckin'-lutely, Kendall! A new war IS THE guaranteed way of getting re-elected in the USA. Just start a sudden shooting war with Iran about 6 months or less prior to the election in 2012. Kick it off by having an American ship in the Gulf get "sunk by Iran"...or through some other even much worse "terrorist" incident that kills Americans and gets blamed on Iran. These things are easily accomplished by various covert means. The country would rush to rally around the flag in a frenzy of patriotic fury, Obama would be re-elected handily, and the country would move from being merely waist or chest deep in the Big Muddy to being in up to its eyeballs or maybe beyond.... I'm not saying that WILL happen. I'm making no predictions. I'm simply saying that if it did happen, Obama would get re-elected handily as a consequence...and the country would go several steps further down the slippery slope to damnation and perdition. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Bobert Date: 17 Nov 10 - 08:47 PM After some reconsideration, I have abandoned my thinking that Obama should declare he isn't going to run in '12... I don't know what got into me but it has passed... I mean, I guess I was just hoping that that might force the Repubs to be part of this government but it won't... The Repubs are just going to be Repubs... They know how to win elections but they really are clueless on the governing side... It's no wonder that none of the Repubs are stepping up to be on the House Appropriations Committee... They can talk the talk but scared to death to walk the walk... So that committee is like a radiation pit for Repubs... Beohner might have to sacrifice a few of them by forcing them to be on the committee... Yeah, easy to talk about cutting spending and quite another to be the one who votes to take away that federal money for their district... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Mrrzy Date: 17 Nov 10 - 09:03 PM Yes, what I don't understand is why not running would allow him to accomplish actual things. Can someone splain to Looooooooooooocy? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Ron Davies Date: 17 Nov 10 - 09:24 PM So now we have "Coca-Cola gambit time"-- President Obama should "announce he isn't running, get a lot of stuff done..." A brilliant plan. For somebody totally clueless about politics. Let's use our heads for once. Look, if you announce you're not running, you become an automatic lame duck---you and your ideas will be progressively more ignored. So you ensure that you will in fact get nothing done. The brilliant plan fails elementary logic. Aside from that, it's wonderful. I wonder if the author of the brilliant plan is also a hard-headed clear-thinking, self-reliant atheist. And if so, if he thinks that now would be a politically advisable time to push to remove "under God" from the Pledge--yes, I know it's an addition from the 50's. Or perhaps to agitate to take 10 Commandments plaques out of courthouses. Perhaps he should just return to his career as top corporate strategist for Coca-Cola. That job probably also pays better than his current position as top advisor to the Obama administration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: InOBU Date: 17 Nov 10 - 09:59 PM If you were sitting in the dark, in another nation, given up by special rendition a decade ago, and two years into this administration you are still among the tortured and forgoten, whould you want him to run again? If you were sitting in Quantanamo, now two years on, in a land beyond legal righs, whould you want him to have another chance on the promiced change? If you were Lynne Stewart, still prosicuted by Obama's justice department, for doing a lawyers job, whould you want him to run again? If you were Leonard Pelitier, still in jail, innocent and a prisoner of conscience... If you were under the theat of mountain top removal as he supports big coal... and on and on... business as usual is not change in my book... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Bobert Date: 17 Nov 10 - 10:07 PM Yeah, Obama has been a disappointment... He hasn't just stood up to the politics that the Repubs have thrown at him and say, "Fuck it... We're gonna do what is right..." Too much appeasement and too much bad stuff happening in our name... Good post, OBU... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Nov 10 - 10:08 PM Nope. It's just the $ySStem perpetuating itself and fooling the American public into the illusion of "change" by switching the Republican hat for the Democratic hat for the Republican hat for the Democratic hat for the Republican hat for the Democratic hat for the Republican hat for the Democratic hat for.... (keep repeating the mantra until you achieve a perfect trance) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Bobert Date: 17 Nov 10 - 10:27 PM How would we know, LH??? We've had 30 years of Repub control with very few interuptions... I mean, yeah, it's easy to sing that song but that's becomin' an old, old song... I sang the same song going back into the 90s and I worked for Nadar big time in two elections so I know the song inside and out but... ...I don't think you are fully appreciating just how the Repub party ***is*** the corporate party... The corporations were so scared of Obama that they spent hundreds of millions of dollars organizing the Tea Party as a hammer to bust on him and the Dems... I mean, I appreciate where you are coming from here but I think you need to seriously reconsider your position because it plays right into the hands of Boss Hog... I mean, as long as Boss Hog has folks out there sayin', "Well, Ralph, they are both the same" then people are never held accountable for anything at all 'cause it's... ...twiddle dee, twiddle dum... I mean, if you aren't aware that there are some very real differences between the 2 parties that didn't used to be there then I'd suggest that you have been to busy singin' the old song to realize that things "are a changin'"... Tell me what corporation pushed the Dems to push for health care reform when they knew from the past that big things like that usually mean yer gonna get fired fr doing them??? Just think about it... I mean, I love the old songs but some of them just don't fit the here-and-now... Check it out... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Mrrzy Date: 17 Nov 10 - 10:31 PM He isn't willing to run roughshod over the obstructionists, which is a shame, in a way, but not as much as the obstructionists' obstructing in the first place! Still, shame don't peel no carrots... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: mousethief Date: 17 Nov 10 - 10:38 PM Yeah, Obama has been a disappointment... He hasn't just stood up to the politics that the Repubs have thrown at him and say, "Fuck it... We're gonna do what is right..." Too much appeasement and too much bad stuff happening in our name... Yup. But our country is screwed. The corporatocracy is selling us down the river, sending all the good jobs overseas and not replacing them with ANYTHING in the states. (Gee, why is there 9.5% unemployment? Because Obama isn't hiring people? No it's because the corporatocracy isn't hiring people. And why should they, when they can continue getting mindbogglingly rich without doing anything?) We have shifted the tax burden ENORMOUSLY from the top end to the middle and bottom end of the income curve, and they want to shift it more. The great thing -- they're geniuses -- is that they have got the middle and working classes to BEG THEM to pay less proportionately in taxes! God, they have it made in the shade! Once there is no more American middle class, they will have to sell their wares overseas, of course, but hey, China and India are coming online as major commodity cultures. So they don't care. Eventually of course they will do away with the minimum wage, have repossessed all our homes and own all the real estate and rent to us at exorbitant rates, and pay us a crust and tell us to be glad to get that. Quote me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Bobert Date: 17 Nov 10 - 10:49 PM Exactly, mouse... Obama has made it clear that in his heart of hearts he thinks extending tax cuts to the rich is wrong... Problem is that he ain't got the balls to stand up to the Repubs... I say, "Screw 'um"... If I were Obama I'd blitz the Repubs from every angle I could think of 'cause there ain't no appeasing Boss Hog until he has us all pickin' cotton on his plantations... That's what he wants and he is gettin' closer and closer to havin' his way... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Nov 10 - 10:50 PM I fully understand your preference for the Democrats, Bobert, and I share it. However....I think Americans need to look at the much bigger picture of what is happening in their country, which is that huge vested interests get both the Republicans and the Democrats to serve them rather than serving the public. Progressives will always vote for the Democrats, not the Republicans...so the Democrats have progressives in their ranks, and they talk progressive policies (some) when they run for office, whereas the Republicans talk reactionary policies. That's a given. That makes the 2 parties quite different in outer style and stated ideals. So naturally, you and I would prefer the Democrats. But once IN office the Democrats cave in to the real bosses who are not your elected officials, but the CEOs of major corporations and the military-industrial complex. So Obama talks about reforming health care (and probably wants to do so too), but the bill that is finally passed becomes a huge giveaway to the private health insurers by forcing millions more people to become their customers! That's not the health care y'all were hoping for when you voted for Obama....but the $ySStem doesn't care. It wants the private health insurers to get richer, so the bill was shaped in that fashion. Meanwhile you all got caught up in the usual partisan hatred that perpetually divides your country into 2 irreconcilable communities...and that serves the $ySStem, because you stay divided, helpless, and distracted and the great 2-party game of "divide and conquer" goes on as it always has. It doesn't REQUIRE the Republicans and Democrats to be identical!!!! In fact, it requires that they be noticeably different, both in style and basic philosophy, but those differences won't help you one bit if they've both been bought out. And they have been. You HAVE to get rid of both the Republicans AND the Democrats, but more importantly of the huge financial entities and lobbies who control them or you cannot have an honest and responsible government that represents the people at large. BIG MONEY has broken your democracy. The only way I see to change that, frankly, is some kind of enormous social revolution that utterly sweeps away the existing system. You can't do it at the polls, in my opinion. Just not possible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Ebbie Date: 17 Nov 10 - 11:48 PM If Palin had added something to the effect that in her opinion practically anyone could beat Obama if his approval rating doesn't go up, I wouldn't be so disbelieving of her chutzpa- the obvious question - qhich I wish he had asked - should be "And what would you do next?" Her ansaer comes across that she thinks of the presidency as being some kind of popularity contest. What will be your first decision, Madam President? Palin: I could beat Obama Story last updated at 11/17/2010 - 1:44 pm WASHINGTON – Sarah Palin says she could defeat President Barack Obama if she seeks the White House in 2012. In an excerpt of an ABC News interview released Wednesday, the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee says she's considering a presidential run. When asked directly if she thought she could defeat Obama, the former Alaska governor replied, "I believe so." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: mousethief Date: 18 Nov 10 - 12:01 AM Her first decision would be to abolish Social Security. Then, shut down all regulatory agencies including FDA, FDIC, EPA, etc. Then kill Medicare. Then get rid of the minimum wage. Sell off the national parks, preserves, wilderness areas and such to the highest bidder, and give the money to the Koch brothers. Shut down all independent research dollars, all student financial aid, all money going to state and local schools. I can't think of anything more. I'm tired. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: DougR Date: 18 Nov 10 - 12:28 AM McGrath: Obama is a conservative? Jeeze, I knew you were left-wing, but didn't know how far. L.H.: I don't hate any liberals, socialists, communists, or even Baptists, Methodists, or Muslims. Of course Obama should run in 2012 if he wants to. It's a free (still) country. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: akenaton Date: 18 Nov 10 - 07:06 AM Mrs Palin has already said what her first decision will be. To "pull" the funding from Obamacare. This has apparently pissed off the Repubs, who are desperate for tax cuts for the rich. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: akenaton Date: 18 Nov 10 - 07:13 AM I already warned you of what our wonderful NHS has become, a financial black hole......a money trough for GPs, consultants, drug companies, and private service providers. It is often heavily abused by the users themselves. Think very carefully before you hand all your revenues to a "democratic" system. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Bobert Date: 18 Nov 10 - 09:53 AM The problem with "pulling the plug" is that we supposedly live in a constitutional democracy... This seems to escape Miss Sarah... I mean, if she could just wave a magic wand and "pull the plug" on the health care reform bill then she would also have the poser to pull the plus on the Civil Rights Act... I wish that there was a basic level of knowledge of government before people could hold office... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Nov 10 - 12:57 PM Aww, hell...it's all just marketing bla-bla anyway, Bobert. They all say whatever they think will help create a fuzzy general impression in the minds of Joe Public, that's all. Sarah was delivering a sound bite to the media to do that, and nothing more. She is probably well aware that she can't just wave a magic wand and make Obamacare disappear the day after she gets (hypothetically) elected. It would have to be done through Congress, and it would be a lengthy and tortuous process, and I'm sure she knows that. They say these things just so a bunch of their most fervent supporters will cheer loudly and jump up and down and the media will lap it up. It's nothing more than that. I bet what they would do if Sarah got elected was tweak Obamacare a little here and there to make it even MORE profitable for the private health insurers than it already is...and even LESS helpful to the general public than it already is....give it a new name...and then they'd say that they'd "repealed Obamacare"! And it wouldn't really be a repeal at all...it would just be putting a new coat of paint and a red dress on an already very ugly statue of a corporate pig. (I'm referring to Obamacare itself when I say that...not to Sarah Palin.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: GUEST Date: 19 Nov 10 - 10:36 AM ``But once IN office the Democrats cave in to the real bosses who are not your elected officials, but the CEOs of major corporations and the military-industrial complex.`` Truer words were never spoke! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: GUEST,999--apologies, that was me. Date: 19 Nov 10 - 10:37 AM ``But once IN office the Democrats cave in to the real bosses who are not your elected officials, but the CEOs of major corporations and the military-industrial complex.`` Truer words were never spoke! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Bobert Date: 19 Nov 10 - 10:52 AM For the `10th time will someone --- anyone --- explain to me who the corporate bosses were that motivated the Dems to take on health care reform??? No, not the corporate bosses who ended up benefiting from the bill but the ones that pushed the Dems in the first place??? This is an important question that kinda blows a hole in the prevailing attitude that both parties are out there doing Boss Hog's bidding... Anyone got an answer to this question??? I didn't think so... In other words, I am strongly suggesting that folks out there who are now parroting this notion that "both sides" are equally guilty of "this or that" tare doing nothing but promoting Repub PR mythology... I mean, we have had 30 years of Repub riule and propaganda so I fully understand how some of these notions got into folks heads... And I agree that Bill Clinton was a Repub thru and thru but, geeze loiuse, the times have changed, folks... So ol' hillbilly is givin' everyone an opportunity to re-evaluate just how much damage is being done with the propagation of the "both sides, blah, blah, blah" PR mytghology... It like 100% Repub... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Little Hawk Date: 19 Nov 10 - 11:53 AM Yes, Bobert, I'll explain that to you. ;-) Listen carefully. It is necessary for the Democratic Party to offer some progressive policy ideas in its platform when there's an election, because progressives won't come out in large numbers to vote for the Democrats otherwise. There are also some genuine idealists in the Democratic Party and they will put forward progressive policy ideas. Obama may have genuinely cared about providing better health care....so I'm NOT saying that the idea to reform health care necessarily came from the corporate bosses. Got that? What I am saying is that once Obama was elected...THEN the corporate bosses immediately began exercising their usual command and control apparatus: lobbying. It's all done through the power of either giving or withholding money...to or from members of Congress. So the progressives in the party get elected partly by promising better health care...but once the legislation starts to go forward, the lobbying kicks in, and the bill starts to be eviscerated. It gets changed far from its original intentions (a single-payer public health insurance plan such as exists in the rest of the developed world)....and it mutates slowly and sickeningly into a plan that delivers millions of new customers to the PRIVATE health insurance industry, thus making them much more money and forcing people to purchase private health insurance whether they want to or not! And there's where Boss Hog took over the plan, Bobert. You see, Boss Hog doesn't have to be the originator of a progressive initiative. Boss Hog just has to step in whenver things might get out of hand and use the power of corporate money to turn what could have been a progressive initiative into another cash grab for the corporates. You see? I'm not saying that Boss Hog controls EVERYTHING or orginates EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS, Bobert. I'm saying that Boss Hog steps in at crucial junctures and takes over the legislative process through the power of lobbying while the process is occuring in Congress. Thus you may elect someone with a genuinely progressive policy and intention, but that progressive policy fails to be enacted in the way it was intended when it gets to Congress, because your Congress and your government have been broken by the power of corporate lobbying. Period. The only thing that can change something this broken is a social revolution, such as happened in France in the 1700s (violent) or such as happened in the Soviet Union and most of the Warsaw Pact in 1989 (nonviolent for the most part). Literally millions of people have to go into the streets and bring down the system....either violently or by the power of moral persuasion. It has to get so bad that most of the army and police either stand by and do nothing... or join the protestors. When that happens, the government falls and the ruling system ends and is replaced by something else. Such things can happen. I do not believe it is any longer possible to reform your political system through the established means of political campaigns and elections, because the power of corporate money and mass media is too great and the process has been completely corrupted. Only a social revolution is going to turn that around. Such a prospect is extremely dangerous, obviously. And if, as an American, you were to speak in favor of such things, you would probably get arrested at some point. If you moved too soon, you'd get squashed by the powers that be. To succeed, it would have to happen pretty much spontaneously, and it would have to involve many millions of people all taking to the streets at the same time. Again I say....such things HAVE happened. And they will happen again. The only questions are: Where and when? And by the gun? Or by moral persuasion? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: pdq Date: 19 Nov 10 - 12:49 PM "... I mean, we have had 30 years of Repub riule and propaganda so I fully understand how some of these notions got into folks heads..." The Democrats were able to take the House, Senate and Presidency in the election of 1932. The Republicans did not get a majority in both branches of Congress, plus the Presidency, until 2002, and they lost both the House and Senate four years later. As they say: "do the math". 70 years of Democrat rule followed by just four years of Republican domination, during which time we had 4% unemployment and Boom Times for all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 19 Nov 10 - 02:16 PM He may run, but defeat is inevitable. Too much anger. Not his fault, but will pull him down. To correct a blanket statement by Little Hawk- "...a single payer health plan such as exists in the rest of the developed world..." France- The French must make a personal contribution as the state does not cover all of a person's medical charges. French residents either take out an insurance policy to cover the difference or trust that they can make up the difference. Canada- In Alberta, the process is similar. There is a monthly premium charge. Basic health care is covered, but not all procedures, and some specialists demand a higher fee tham allowed by the province. Many pay for MRI, other advanced techniques, because the waiting lists are long. All drugs are on a shared cost system, the patient pays part. Many take out insurance to cover the difference in costs or for treatments not paid for by the province. Canada does not have a unitary health care scheme; each province makes its own rules. Japan- Medical expenses borne by workers is about 30 percent (monthly premiums). Many workers fall behind on payments. Both private and public hospitals, the former offering better care. All are non-profit, but good staff and care is expensive, so private hospitals only for the well-to-do. No 'family' doctors who are aware of the patient's full history. Scotland- Basic health care is paid through taxation. The Bank of Scotland and other institutions sell health-care insurance to cover day-to-day medical and drug expenses; covers complimentary and alternative therapies, and better pregnancy and child care treatments. England- The better private health care is elected by those who can afford it. Private Insurance available. Public medical operations are paid through taxes. Germany- premiums for workers based on salary. About 15 per cent elect private insurance and private treatment. All salaried employees below 50,000 Euros must join the public system, which takes roughly l5 percent of pay, the amount depending on the deal between the company and an insurance company. Public health care is taking a larger share of taxes everywhere because of aging populations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Little Hawk Date: 19 Nov 10 - 03:48 PM Sure thing, thanks for providing all the specific details, Q. In any case, my point was this: the health care plan progressives envisioned when Obama was campaigning barely resembles the corporate-friendly plan they got. Publicly provided and easily affordable health care that is paid for by people's taxes should be a civil right in any modern social system. It is considered a civil right by most Canadians. A country that does not ensure that ALL its citizens have equal and universal access to ALL the health care they require at an affordable price is under a corrupt system, as far as I'm concerned, a system that deserves to be overthrown by its people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Stringsinger Date: 19 Nov 10 - 04:01 PM Hillary Clinton is pro-war. Whether Obama runs or not is really not that important. What is more horrifying is a President Palin. If Obama didn't run, who would the Dems offer that would be any better given the state of the Democratic Party now? I would like to see a President Kucinich or Feingold but this seems highly remote. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Little Hawk Date: 19 Nov 10 - 04:15 PM Obama's pro-war too when it comes to Afghanistan and launching various attacks inside Pakistan or Yemen, etc, but that's no surprise. All presidents seem to mysteriously become pro-war once elected, even if they weren't before they were elected. (possible exception: Jimmy Carter) That's because, in my opinion, they are the servants of the military-industrial establishment, not its boss. Kennedy tried to be its boss, and he didn't last too long, did he? Yeah, Hillary would be a real hawk if elected president. The only one I can imagine voting for with full commitment would be Dennis Kucinich, but there is no change at all that he will ever become president. I would also vote for Ron Paul (with some reservations) but I seriously doubt he will ever become president either. Both Kucinich and Paul wish to end the wars and bring the troops home. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Bobert Date: 19 Nov 10 - 06:22 PM Regardless of the specifics of other nations health care, two things jump off the page: First... The US spends 17% of it entire GNP on health care... That is twice as much as any of its competitors Two: The US does not rank in the top twenty in life expectancy and has the highest infant mortality rate in the industrialized world... Translation: We are getting a double dose of hosing!!! As fir your assessment, LH, on how the system works??? Yes, that is all correct... And until we get publicly financed elections and independent redistricting that's the way it will stay... I still hold the opinion, however, that if we expect things to change to then progressives have to give the Dems a break here... The "both the same" excuses the mischief of the Repubs which, BTW, makes the Dems look like Boy Scouts... And I hold the belief that that "both the same" has been pushed hard by the Repub PR folks to cover the crap that the Repubs do... And get away with... I'm not sayin' that the Dems don't do stuff bad... It's just like the Dems don't have that Lee Atwater/Karl Rove scorched earth mentality... They are not "both the same"... B~ B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Little Hawk Date: 19 Nov 10 - 07:09 PM Bobert, how many times have I said that they are not "both the same". Over and over and over and over and over again I have said it. But they are both corrupted by corporate lobbying, that's all. That doesn't mean they're "both the same", it means they're both not trustworthy once in office. You know perfectly well that I think the Republicans are considerably worse than the Democrats. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: akenaton Date: 19 Nov 10 - 07:49 PM problem is Bobert.....it does not matter who is the "least worse". While the supporters of the two factions can be encouraged to fight one another, the financiers and corporatists will continue to rule, while we will be asked to pay for their crimes. If the economy remains stagnant, or worsens, if the US remains mired in unwinnable foreign wars etc, and the Republicans field a systems politician in 2012......Mr Obama and the Democrats will be wiped out. Why do you all hate Sarah so much? she is your only hope. Unfortunately even if Obama were to beat Sarah, his majority would be so small, that nothing to your liking could be achieved. If you are waiting for progressive evolution, welcome to the club. We have had 10years of Labour and now our living standards and services are being slashed....The labour govt encouraged deregulation of the banks....the liberals are now acting as mercenaries for the conservative govt. Hypocrites to a man. Hawk is right....once they get power, they are against "we the people", no matter what label they bear. THE SYSTEM RULES. There is a chance that Sarah might just be egotistical enough to pass on the money she is making, and run for first US female president. Any real progressive will see that as a first step on a long road to break the old political system and bring forward "people power". Once ordinary people have a real voice, then is time to start campaigning for the society you want to see. Or maybe you dont want to see it! :0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Bobert Date: 19 Nov 10 - 08:01 PM Pee in the cup, Ake... We have dumbed down our country to where it is ready to implode from ignorance... The last hope we have is for somewhat intelligent people to run it while our obsession with "dumb-is-in" wears off... We are one Sarah Palin away from the last straw... I mean, we are teetering on the edge of destruction as it is... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Lox Date: 19 Nov 10 - 08:16 PM "the financiers and corporatists will continue to rule" "There is a chance that Sarah might just be egotistical enough to pass on the money she is making, and run for first US female president. Any real progressive will see that as a first step on a long road to break the old political system and bring forward "people power"." Let me get this straight ... ... Unless there is a shakeup, the corporate rulers will continue to rule ... ok - fine - I'm with that ... ... And Sarah Palin being elected will undermine the corporatocracy ... er - she is the mouthpiece of the corporatocracy. How exactly does making a corporate pin up/mouthpiece president undermine corporate power? Its ok - you don't have to answer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Bobert Date: 19 Nov 10 - 08:51 PM BTW, LH, Yes, I know that you know the deal so my apologies... Not too sure that other progressives have figured it out, as well... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Obama Run in '12??? From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Nov 10 - 01:15 AM The sad thing is, Bobert, I have completely lost faith in all the existing political parties. I've even lost faith in the very concept of having political parties at all, because they aid and abett the centralization and perpetuation of the worst political corruption. It's the same problem in Canada and the UK as it is in the USA...all the main political parties have long ago sold out to the lobbying of the corporates, the banks, and the military...so no matter who the public elects, the basic system doesn't really change (except it gets slowly worse) and the public gets robbed. It's not just a USA problem, it's happening elsewhere too. It's more primitive and extreme in the USA, due to your having only 2 viable parties and elections which are incredibly costly and take almost forever....! But Canada and the UK are similarly compromised. People in the UK elected Labour when they elected Tony Blair, and they thought they would get a progressive "liberal" government that would help the common man and stay out of America's wars. BOY, were they ever wrong!!! The way Labour acted once in power, you could have sworn they were Maggie Thatcher's party (Conservatives). That's what happens. Conservatives vote for the Right and they get fascist corporates who make no apology for their ruthlessness, and they get robbed. They vote for the Left and they get fascist corporates masquerading as nice guy liberals...and they still get robbed. Either way, they get robbed. And that's why I've lost all faith in the party system in the English-speaking countries. It's not real anymore, it's a charade...in my opinion. To vote for the lesser of 2 evils is just not good enough if you want to have a viable society with some kind of good future. |
