secondly, just look at the vice-president choices in terms of the "heartbeat away from the presidency." on the one hand you have biden who for all his quirks is prepared. this guy romney is running with-- paul ryan-- is not ready to be a head of state and may never be ready.

thirdly, romney has no business getting involved in the international scene. there's no real nuance to his thinking process and he is a bit of a bellicose bully at heart, as he clearly showed in the debates.

lastly, a guy who is willing to his positions in order to get elected is just not a leader.

what needs to happen is that the republicans must cease their obstructionist policies and allow our nation's leader to lead. be the loyal opposition of course but gridlock just won't fly anymore. time is of the essence.

misterearl wrote:Outstanding Remarks

Nalod - your comprehensive thumbnail is brutally honest and contains an advanced appreciation of context. You should be commended for sharing which you have obviously given a lot of thought to.

The world is changing faster than any President of The United States can mandate or control. Events are shaped by information that moves faster than ever. The best we can hope for is that the person in The Oval Office is intelligent enough to sort through data with patience and decisiveness. There is a huge difference between campaigning and governing. The fact that 17 of 24 Romney advisors on foreign policy are Bush retreads raises a red flag.

Any foreign policy advisory board that seeks the counsel of Cofer Black, Michael Hayden, Dan Senor or John Lehman, to name just a select few, is a real cause for concern. Of that crowd, Black is the most worrying. Cofer “the gloves come off” Black was one of the most brutal figures in CIA history, heading the agency’s Counterterrorism Center at the time of the 9/11 attacks. Think Obama’s counterterrorism program is perverse? Black is about as “dark side” as you get, an American exceptionalist in the worst sense of the word, and perhaps the most vocal advocate for extraordinary renditions and so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

The public may have trouble with Obama’s use of armed drones, but with Black whispering in his ear, Romney’s counterterrorism policy would be a frightening true return to those heady, Bush-era days of CIA black sites and waterboarding sessions. - Laura Hughes

The main point is that voting is a must.

If Tyson Chandler is back on the court by election day we will all breathe easier.

arkrud wrote:My vote goes to Gary Johnson.
Just like the man and what he done.
Of course he will get his 1 to 3% but I am so fedup with Dems and Reps self-serving that cannot vote for any of them.
http://2012.libertarian-party.org/Johnson/

Johnson has some very salient points, but COME ON arkrud! This guy can't be president and much of what he's calling for is just not possible with the entrenched big money entities that ALL politicians have to pay some allegiance to. This system will always be beholden to some degree to the powerful interests. The entire Libertarian thing is too idealist. You can live in that fantasy if you choose, but it ain't gonna happen. In the end your vote will only help to re-elect Obama :)

mrKnickShot wrote:

holfresh wrote:GDP up 2% this morning, better than expected...Housing numbers better than expected,..JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon says FED might have to raise rates next year after Bernanke said he would keep steady until 2015..Meaning?..Economy is doing better than people are expecting...Jobs numbers are better, not great but better...The Economy is performing at a clip where it looks like it had experienced a traumatic recession, far deeper than ones in recent years, near depression...It going to take time to get back to where it used to be no matter who is in the White House...The Global Economy has a lot to do with how we recover than most are willing to admit...Steady as she goes, stay the course...Dow is at 13k...4 years ago most on Wall Street would have signed up for that without hesitation if presented to them with Obama in the White House...

The market does not look poised to pop - maybe a little up swing.

Obama needs the market to be stable thought they are nervous that he will be elected.

Bad earnings has more to do with it than anything...Romney's guys are saying the economy and the markets will do well just on their victory without them doing anything...Yesterday a group of CEO's came out with a plan for the fiscal cliff which is essentially endorsing Obama's plan...Revenues along with spending cuts..Who will be better for the markets...Is it that obvious??

mrKnickShot wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

holfresh wrote:GDP up 2% this morning, better than expected...Housing numbers better than expected,..JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon says FED might have to raise rates next year after Bernanke said he would keep steady until 2015..Meaning?..Economy is doing better than people are expecting...Jobs numbers are better, not great but better...The Economy is performing at a clip where it looks like it had experienced a traumatic recession, far deeper than ones in recent years, near depression...It going to take time to get back to where it used to be no matter who is in the White House...The Global Economy has a lot to do with how we recover than most are willing to admit...Steady as she goes, stay the course...Dow is at 13k...4 years ago most on Wall Street would have signed up for that without hesitation if presented to them with Obama in the White House...

The market does not look poised to pop - maybe a little up swing.

Obama needs the market to be stable thought they are nervous that he will be elected.

Romney's guys are saying the economy and the markets will do well just on their victory without them doing anything...

I believe that they are correct (at least initially)

I'm sure Bush got a pop too, especially after both of his tax cuts...

nixluva wrote:This system will always be beholden to some degree to the powerful interests. The entire Libertarian thing is too idealist. You can live in that fantasy if you choose, but it ain't gonna happen.

This is a self-defeating, self-fulfilling prophecy I am tired of hearing.

Coke or Pepsi, that's it? No RC Cola, no root beer? American consumers may have a myriad of choices at the store, but not as voters. Is this American Idol or our democracy? This country is way too big and diverse to be properly represented by just two parties.

The Electoral College makes it so only a minority of voters in a minority of states has a juice card in the presidential race. I live in New York. So isn't a vote for anyone other than Obama a "waste"?

Disenchanted with Obama after voting for him in '08. Didn't think Change would come with drone strikes on US citizens. May vote for Obama on the Working Families Party line, or for Jill Stein of the Green Party. Don't think she'd necessarily be a great president, don't expect her to be elected. But her party does not accept donations from corporations and supports a constitutional amendment to limit corporate money's influence in politics. http://movetoamend.org/democracy-amendments I like many of Johnson's positions as well.

There is a third party debate between Stein and Johnson on Tues evening Oct. 30 if any of you are interested in finding out more about them.

http://freeandequal.org/updates/winners-of-october-23-presidential-debate/

DrAlphaeus wrote:

nixluva wrote:This system will always be beholden to some degree to the powerful interests. The entire Libertarian thing is too idealist. You can live in that fantasy if you choose, but it ain't gonna happen.

This is a self-defeating, self-fulfilling prophecy I am tired of hearing.

Coke or Pepsi, that's it? No RC Cola, no root beer? American consumers may have a myriad of choices at the store, but not as voters. Is this American Idol or our democracy? This country is way too big and diverse to be properly represented by just two parties.

The Electoral College makes it so only a minority of voters in a minority of states has a juice card in the presidential race. I live in New York. So isn't a vote for anyone other than Obama a "waste"?

Disenchanted with Obama after voting for him in '08. Didn't think Change would come with drone strikes on US citizens. May vote for Obama on the Working Families Party line, or for Jill Stein of the Green Party. Don't think she'd necessarily be a great president, don't expect her to be elected. But her party does not accept donations from corporations and supports a constitutional amendment to limit corporate money's influence in politics. http://movetoamend.org/democracy-amendments I like many of Johnson's positions as well.

There is a third party debate between Stein and Johnson on Tues evening Oct. 30 if any of you are interested in finding out more about them.

http://freeandequal.org/updates/winners-of-october-23-presidential-debate/

Let's try and think this thru. I'm living in the deep south where it's still not over the Civil War and there is still deep racial bigotry. This country hasn't fully evolved to the point where we can really believe that a 3rd party is anything more than mental masturbation. Not for the Presidency. As for this false equivalency that somehow both the Democratic Party and Republican Party are equally bad is garbage. Which Party has fomented War when in power? Which party has repeatedly blown up the deficit while pretending that they're the "responsible" ones? Which party has looked to strip voting rights, women's reproductive rights, created income inequality...? No the Democrats aren't perfect, but they clearly stand on the higher ground when it comes to the average American.

Less War under Democrats
Lower Deficits under Democrats
More Employment under Democrats
Higher Wages and overall wealth under Democrats
More social programs that help the poor under Democrats

If you can't vote for Obama with the full understanding of what he's had to fight thru then perhaps you lack clarity of just what the Republicans did to this country. The Republicans haven't done a single thing in the last 4 years to help this country get out of this recession.

The average American does better financially under Dems and the Rich still make out great!!! Higher taxes and all.

Government spending is lower under Dems.

Dems actually lower the deficit while Republicans only increase it.

Dems create more jobs too.

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/27/the_progressive_case_against_obama/?source=newsletter

A few days ago, I participated in a debate with the legendary antiwar dissident Daniel Ellsberg on Huffington Post live on the merits of the Obama administration, and what progressives should do on Election Day. Ellsberg had written a blog post arguing that, though Obama deserves tremendous criticism, voters in swing states ought to vote for him, lest they operate as dupes for a far more malevolent Republican Party. This attitude is relatively pervasive among Democrats, and it deserves a genuine response. As the election is fast approaching, this piece is an attempt at laying out the progressive case for why one should not vote for Barack Obama for reelection, even if you are in a swing state.

There are many good arguments against Obama, even if the Republicans cannot seem to muster any. The civil liberties/antiwar case was made eloquently a few weeks ago by libertarian Conor Friedersdorf, who wrote a well-cited blog post on why he could not, in good conscience, vote for Obama. While his arguments have tremendous merit, there is an equally powerful case against Obama on the grounds of economic and social equity. That case needs to be made. For those who don’t know me, here is a brief, relevant background:  I have a long history in Democratic and liberal politics. I have worked for several Democratic candidates and affiliated groups, I have personally raised millions of dollars for Democrats online, I was an early advisor to Actblue (which has processed over $300 million to Democratic candidates). I have worked in Congress (mostly on the Dodd-Frank financial reform package), and I was a producer at MSNBC. Furthermore, I aggressively opposed Nader-style challenges until 2008.

So why oppose Obama? Simply, it is the shape of the society Obama is crafting that I oppose, and I intend to hold him responsible, such as I can, for his actions in creating it. Many Democrats are disappointed in Obama. Some feel he’s a good president with a bad Congress. Some feel he’s a good man, trying to do the right thing, but not bold enough. Others think it’s just the system, that anyone would do what he did. I will get to each of these sentiments, and pragmatic questions around the election, but I think it’s important to be grounded in policy outcomes. Not, what did Obama try to do, in his heart of hearts? But what kind of America has he actually delivered? And the chart below answers the question. This chart reflects the progressive case against Obama.

The above is a chart of corporate profits against the main store of savings for most Americans who have savings — home equity. Notice that after the crisis, after the Obama inflection point, corporate profits recovered dramatically and surpassed previous highs, whereas home equity levels have remained static. That $5-7 trillion of lost savings did not come back, whereas financial assets and corporate profits did. Also notice that this is unprecedented in postwar history. Home equity levels and corporate profits have simply never diverged in this way; what was good for GM had always, until recently, been good, if not for America, for the balance sheet of homeowners. Obama’s policies severed this link, completely.

This split represents more than money. It represents a new kind of politics, one where Obama, and yes, he did this, officially enshrined rights for the elite in our constitutional order and removed rights from everyone else (see “The Housing Crash and the End of American Citizenship” in the Fordham Urban Law Journal for a more complete discussion of the problem). The bailouts and the associated Federal Reserve actions were not primarily shifts of funds to bankers; they were a guarantee that property rights for a certain class of creditors were immune from challenge or market forces. The foreclosure crisis, with its rampant criminality, predatory lending, and document forgeries, represents the flip side. Property rights for debtors simply increasingly exist solely at the pleasure of the powerful. The lack of prosecution of Wall Street executives, the ability of banks to borrow at 0 percent from the Federal Reserve while most of us face credit card rates of 15-30 percent, and the bailouts are all part of the re-creation of the American system of law around Obama’s oligarchy.

The policy continuity with Bush is a stark contrast to what Obama offered as a candidate. Look at the broken promises from the 2008 Democratic platform: a higher minimum wage, a ban on the replacement of striking workers, seven days of paid sick leave, a more diverse media ownership structure, renegotiation of NAFTA, letting bankruptcy judges write down mortgage debt, a ban on illegal wiretaps, an end to national security letters, stopping the war on whistle-blowers, passing the Employee Free Choice Act, restoring habeas corpus, and labor protections in the FAA bill. Each of these pledges would have tilted bargaining leverage to debtors, to labor, or to political dissidents. So Obama promised them to distinguish himself from Bush, and then went back on his word because these promises didn’t fit with the larger policy arc of shifting American society toward his vision. For sure, Obama believes he is doing the right thing, that his policies are what’s best for society. He is a conservative technocrat, running a policy architecture to ensure that conservative technocrats like him run the complex machinery of the state and reap private rewards from doing so. Radical political and economic inequality is the result. None of these policy shifts, with the exception of TARP, is that important in and of themselves, but together they add up to declining living standards.

While life has never been fair, the chart above shows that, since World War II, this level of official legal, political and economic inequity for the broad mass of the public is new (though obviously for subgroups, like African-Americans, it was not new). It is as if America’s traditional racial segregationist tendencies have been reorganized, and the tools and tactics of that system have been repurposed for a multicultural elite colonizing a multicultural population. The data bears this out: Under Bush, economic inequality was bad, as 65 cents of every dollar of income growth went to the top 1 percent. Under Obama, however, that number is 93 cents out of every dollar. That’s right, under Barack Obama there is more economic inequality than under George W. Bush. And if you look at the chart above, most of this shift happened in 2009-2010, when Democrats controlled Congress. This was not, in other words, the doing of the mean Republican Congress. And it’s not strictly a result of the financial crisis; after all, corporate profits did crash, like housing values did, but they also recovered, while housing values have not.

This is the shape of the system Obama has designed. It is intentional, it is the modern American order, and it has a certain equilibrium, the kind we identify in Middle Eastern resource extraction based economies. We are even seeing, as I showed in an earlier post, a transition of the American economic order toward a petro-state. By some accounts, America will be the largest producer of hydrocarbons in the world, bigger than Saudi Arabia. This is just not an America that any of us should want to live in. It is a country whose economic basis is oligarchy, whose political system is authoritarianism, and whose political culture is murderous toward the rest of the world and suicidal in our aggressive lack of attention to climate change.

Many will claim that Obama was stymied by a Republican Congress. But the primary policy framework Obama put in place – the bailouts, took place during the transition and the immediate months after the election, when Obama had enormous leverage over the Bush administration and then a dominant Democratic Party in Congress. In fact, during the transition itself, Bush’s Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson offered a deal to Barney Frank, to force banks to write down mortgages and stem foreclosures if Barney would speed up the release of TARP money. Paulson demanded, as a condition of the deal, that Obama sign off on it. Barney said fine, but to his surprise, the incoming president vetoed the deal. Yup, you heard that right — the Bush administration was willing to write down mortgages in response to Democratic pressure, but it was Obama who said no, we want a foreclosure crisis. And with Neil Barofsky’s book ”Bailout,” we see why. Tim Geithner said, in private meetings, that the foreclosure mitigation programs were not meant to mitigate foreclosures, but to spread out pain for the banks, the famous “foam the runway” comment. This central lie is key to the entire Obama economic strategy. It is not that Obama was stymied by Congress, or was up against a system, or faced a massive crisis, which led to the shape of the economy we see today. Rather, Obama had a handshake deal to help the middle class offered to him by Paulson, and Obama said no. He was not constrained by anything but his own policy instincts. And the reflation of corporate profits and financial assets and death of the middle class were the predictable results.

The rest of Obama’s policy framework looks very different when you wake up from the dream state pushed by cable news. Obama’s history of personal use of illegal narcotics, combined with his escalation of the war on medical marijuana (despite declining support for the drug war in the Democratic caucus), shows both a personal hypocrisy and destructive cynicism that we should decry in anyone, let alone an important policymaker who helps keep a half a million people in jail for participating in a legitimate economy outlawed by the drug warrior industry. But it makes sense once you realize that his policy architecture coheres with a Romney-like philosophy that there is one set of rules for the little people, and another for the important people. It’s why the administration quietly pushed Chinese investment in American infrastructure, seeks to privatize public education, removed labor protections from the FAA authorization bill, and inserted a provision into the stimulus bill ensuring AIG bonuses would be paid, and then lied about it to avoid blame. Wall Street speculator who rigged markets are simply smart and savvy businessmen, as Obama called Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon, whereas the millions who fell prey to their predatory lending schemes are irresponsible borrowers. And it’s why Obama is explicitly targeting entitlements, insurance programs for which Americans paid. Obama wants to preserve these programs for the “most vulnerable,” but that’s still a taking. Did not every American pay into Social Security and Medicare? They did, but as with the foreclosure crisis, property rights (which are essential legal rights) of the rest of us are irrelevant. While Romney is explicit about 47 percent of the country being worthless, Obama just acts as if they are charity cases. In neither case does either candidate treat the mass of the public as fellow citizens.