Ah - yet another ‘hopium’ addict, as Dylan Ratigan might say.  Since the first step back to health is admitting that one HAS an addiction problem, we clearly won’t be getting anything different from this source any time soon.

I appears some just “can’t handle the truth.” But
being far left and far right are diseases imo,
probably will be treated by the same mechanism once
science figures out how to treat this obviously crippling
condition.

In the meantime, from DailyKos a trip down memory
lane:

“Still waiting for Joe Biden to fulfill his vice-
presidential duties by blowing the cover of a CIA
operative out of petty revenge and then shooting a
lawyer in the face. Hop to it, man!”

And a Christmasy thought:
“A key difference between Barack Obama and the
Republican candidates running against him: if one of
the bulbs in the president’s head goes out the others
stay lit.”

What, precisely, gave you the impression that a lot of people here don’t understand this very well?  Governance and government exist even in the most repressive regimes:  the pertinent issues are who controls them and how to affect that.

Your country is being raped by corporate criminals who control every aspect of so called “government” while you blather on about “governance.”

You are hostages and powerless. Only when you understand that can you do anything to save your country.

If only that ridiculous list of Outrages’ was printed out one might then use it for toilet paper at least.

Well, at least you’re willing to put some effort into trying to support your position, which is considerably better than many Obama apologists (who simply bleat or bluster).

Was Democratic governance better than Republican governance probably would have been?  I never suggested that it wasn’t, because that’s not the real issue.  The real issue is whether Democratic governance is taking us a sufficiently different direction (rather than merely slowing down progress in the wrong direction) that we can justify supporting it.  Because if it’s only slowing down the deterioration, things are still going to get worse and eventually we’ll get to the same place we would with Republicans in charge.

There’s definitely been some of the slowing down, but no real reversal of direction.  Did the Democrats use their power in Congress to get us out of Iraq when they were elected largely to do just that in November, 2006?  No:  it’s taken a full 5 more years (considerably longer than Republicans had control of the purse strings) - and didn’t improve much even in Obama’s first two years in the White House.  And while we’re finally leaving now, it’s been at the cost of major escalation elsewhere.

How about that ‘historic’ health-care ‘victory’, which enshrines control by private insurers into law with minimal controls on them and no controls at all on prices (which is why it almost certainly won’t live even as long as the 10-year CBO projections for it:  with private insurers at the helm it’s a budget-buster of the first order, and ripe for the axe)?  This was a Republican plan originally, so it’s no wonder the insurers love it.  And how’s all that alleged Wall Street ‘reform’ working out for you?  The only substantive action was creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and even that hasn’t yet managed to get off the ground.

Obama has trampled upon civil liberties even more than Bush/Cheney did, and certainly been at least equally reckless in using the military (no, he didn’t start a lot of it, but he’s far behind the sentiment of the American people in being willing to wind it down).  Global warming?  As in so many other areas, he talks a good line but his actions are virtually indistinguishable from Bush’s.

For many of us, just talking the talk and not being quite as bad does not cut it at all.  There’s not much we can do about the Republicans (and when we elected strong Democratic majorities to Congress and put a Democrat in the White House it became obvious that that wasn’t going to change things sufficiently either), but there are things we can do to Democrats to force them to shape up or get shipped out.

Some of us plan to do those things, and the fortunate thing is that it won’t take that large a percentage of voters to make a real difference in election outcomes.  If it takes electing Republicans, so be it:  the Democrats themselves with their Republican-Lite behavior since at least late 2002 have demonstrated that this is just not that scary.

What’s more scary is the number of people of presumably good will who bury their heads in the sand and keep saying that the Democratic party will save us, when the Democratic party (at least on the national level) has so clearly been an integral part of the problem for at least the past decade (and given the 30-year increase in inequality in income and wealth in this country one could suggest for a good deal longer than that, ever since the DLC rose to dominance in the late ‘80s).  Perhaps the Democratic rank and file find that reality so scary to contemplate that maintaining their comfort zone has assumed primary importance for them, regardless of the consequences.

“Hey, if you’re happy with the performance of
Democratic governance in the 2007 - 2009 period (when
Democrats controlled both houses of Congress) and
2009 - 2011 (when they added the White House to that
list),”

After the 2010 elections Democrats did not control both Houses of Congress, this has been the problem. The Repugs refuse to do their job.

Some accomplishments when it was all Democrats:

• Overturned Bush-era policies that allowed uranium
mining near national parks such as the Grand Canyon
(2009)

• Signed the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act that
protects millions of acres of scenic, historic, and
recreational lands and trails (2009)

• Executive orders establishing a federal initiative
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in all federal
operations (2009) (2010)

• Instituted enforcements for equal pay for women
(Lilly Ledbetter Bill) (2009)

• Appointed Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latina, to the
Supreme Court (2009)

• Allowed the State Department of offer same-sex
benefits for employees (2009)

• Elena Kagen appointed to Supreme Court (2010)

• Tasked all federal agencies to develop new
strategies to address HIV/AIDS (2010)

• Ended the Bush-era policy of not regulating and
labeling carbon dioxide emissions (2009)

• Signed a measure requiring energy producing plants
to begin producing 15% of their energy from renewable
sources (2009)

• Historic healthcare reform bill signed – $940
billion over 10 years (2010)

• Reversed some of the Bush-era restrictions that
prevented Medicare from negotiating with
pharmaceutical firms for cheaper drugs, allowing
government to again competitively bid (2009)

• Expanded the SCHIP program to cover health care for
4 million more children (2009)

• Removed Bush era restrictions on embryonic stem-
cell research (2009)

• Overturned the Bush-era practice of not listing
certain federal programs in the federal budget (2009)
(2010) * Note: Bush did this (so did Reagan) in an
effort to hide programs and make the budget look
smaller; such “off budget” items are now included in
the annual budget

• Ordered the closing of offshore tax safe havens
(for individual and business tax evaders) (2009)

• Negotiated a deal with Swiss banks to permit the US
government to gain access to records of tax evaders
and criminals (2009)

• Ended the Bush-era policy of offering tax benefits
to corporations who outsource American jobs (2009)

• Signed historic Wall Street reform bill (2010) *
Note: Designed to reregulate and end abusive
practices and promote consumer protections

• Credit card companies are prohibited from raising
rates without advance notification or arbitrarily if
customers are paying bills on time (2010)

• Signed a bill to extend unemployment benefits set
to expire (2010)

• Authorized a $789 billion economic stimulus plan (2009) * Note: 1/3 in tax cuts for working-class families; 1/3 to states for infrastructure projects; 1/3 to states to prevent the layoff of police officers, teachers, etc. at risk of losing their jobs because of state budget shortfalls

• Increased infrastructure spending (roads, bridges, power plants…) (2009) * Note: Bush was the first president since Herbert Hoover to not make infrastructure a priority

• Authorized the US auto industry rescue plan and two GMAC rescue packages (2009)

• Signed a nuclear limitation treaty with Russia (2010) * Note: The agreement calls for both countries to reduce their nucs by one-third (1,500) and launch systems by half (800)

• Visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any president in his first six months in office (2009)

• Banned the export of cluster bombs (2009)

• Overturned Bush-era plans to increase the US nuclear arsenal (2009)

Hey, if you’re happy with the performance of Democratic governance in the 2007 - 2009 period (when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress) and 2009 - 2011 (when they added the White House to that list), then supporting such ‘forward movement’ makes perfect sense.

Some of us have a different definition of ‘forward’, and act accordingly.

Apparently a vote for the Repugs is an intelligent
choice according to some. LOL

Us slow moving folks will stick with the forward moving
Democrats rather than the stone age Repugs.

But of course it’s not that the Repugs haven’t been
busy, just look at their record.

http://www.extremelysmart.com/andmodest/RepsVsDemsInHistory.php

It’s almost astonishing that entering at the least the fifth biennial election cycle since the lesser-of-two-evils chanting by Democratic hacks began in earnest a lot of people STILL don’t have a clue as to why it might be better to elect a Republican in order to make the Democrats shape up or ship out - even though that Republican’s temporary tenure may in fact be more distasteful than the Democrat’s would have been.

Since I’ve already explained it once in this thread I won’t bother doing so again for the slower members of the group (it probably wouldn’t do any good anyway).

Do We Want Mitt Romney Answering the ‘3 A.M.’ Call?

Sure, as long as he isn’t president.

Republicans are insane. And there is a difference
between Republicans and Democrats to not realize this
is like saying there is no difference between a
sparrow and an ostrich because they are both birds!

One observation that is apt:

“to other sources and potential sources of profit,
such as massive expansion of natural resources
exploitation, the financial services industry, and
then some new ones that they have their eyes on. 
First and foremost would be massive deregulation, for
the environment, labor practices, and financial
markets.  Second, if you listen carefully to what
certain leading right-wing figures, not necessarily
elected ones, say, they do recognize what terrible
shape the US infrastructure is in.  They want to fix
it all right, but they want to privatize it at the
same time.  I am not talking about the construction,
which of course would be privately done.  I am
talking about the running of it, from the roads, to
the water supply systems that are not already in
private hands, and everything else in between. 

Next, they want to be able to destroy the US Postal
Service, both to privatize it and to put one of the
last national labor unions out of existence.  They
want to destroy what is left of the US labor union
movement, especially in the public sector, as they
are doing, for example, in Wisconsin and Ohio, so
that they can further depress wages (otherwise known
as “increase productivity”).  If they had full
control of the Executive and Legislative branches, I
would not put it past them to repeal the National
Labor Relations Act, once again outlawing collective
bargaining, as Scott Walker has done for public
employees in Wisconsin.  Finally, they want full
control over foreign policy.  On the one hand they
want to resume the pursuit of Cheney’s dream of
permanent war.  For if Obama gets a second term, the
US will indeed likely pull out of Afghanistan by 2014
(I didn’t say the man is all bad).  On the other
hand, they want not only to not cut military
spending; they want to increase it.  After all, it
is one of the most profitable sectors of the US
economy.”
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-the-Republicans-Want-t-by-Steven-Jonas-111220-914.html

Anyone who thinks it doesn’t matter who’s in the White House is in denial or is blatantly a hack.

“Ruthless”?  Maybe.  “Oddball”?  Maybe…

But at least he isn’t out invading other countries, dropping bombs on innocent civilians.

Typical that Robinson should be so focused on crimes of our alleged enemies, while ignoring the much bigger and much more ruthless crimes of our own government, including and especially those of the current Democrat warlord, who is faithfully carrying on and expanding the massive crimes of the preceding Republican warlord.

Hmmm, Blueokie - I guess that statement could be true if you are referring to material support rather than just strategic voting (which can be used to leverage one party against the other rather than actually support either).

There are, as the saying goes, many ways to skin a cat.  People who insist that there’s only one way tend to get disappointed when they find out that a lot of people with similar goals may prefer different means to attain them.  Third parties, primary challenges, strategic voting, demonstrations, civil disobedience, and other approaches all have parts to play - and people who insist that only the one they happen to prefer are worthwhile tend to get marginalized themselves rather than marginalize those who see things more holistically.

Supporting either party of the duopoly is supporting both of them.

No, ardee, I meant EXACTLY what I said, and it’s not an opinion but a simple, mathematical fact.  Voting Green at best (had you otherwise voted Democratic) deprives a Democrat of a vote, without affecting the Republican total.  Voting Republican doubles the impact of your vote (in terms of keeping the Democrat from getting elected, which is the specific goal in this case) by adding to the Republican total at the same time it subtracts from the Democratic total.

If you just wanted to ‘send a message’ (and did not intend to follow up and explain to the Democrat exactly what you had done, and why), you might act differently.

As for voting Green, ardee, that’s less effective at evicting perfidious Democrats than voting Republican is, even though it certainly makes one feel a lot better.

In your opinion you meant to say I’m sure. The point for many is to put the Democratic Party on notice that its former progressive base is angered by that party’s swing to the right and will no longer tolerate it. Voting for Republicans IS voting for Democrats.

You seem a bit confused, rumblingspire.  First of all, letting Democrats know that they can be elected only if they honor their promises has very clear value, whether by causing their behavior to improve or by evicting them to make room for other more desirable candidates to fill the vacuum they leave.

Second, there’s nothing whatsoever that keeps one from both doing this and pursuing the other avenues that you advocate.  Your observation in that regard is a classical ‘false dilemma’.

As for voting Green, ardee, that’s less effective at evicting perfidious Democrats than voting Republican is, even though it certainly makes one feel a lot better.  I voted for Nader rather than Cobb in 2004 because of Cobb’s ridiculous “only vote for us in ‘safe’ states” message, and while I don’t recall anything quite as overtly absurd in 2008 until the Green party takes ITSELF a lot more seriously (it no longer even has a functioning Web site in my state) it will be a bit difficult for ME to take it seriously, much as I approve of its platform.

I suspect that Romney would do just fine getting that 3 A.M. phone call, and have every intention of voting for him next November if he’s on the ballot (for the reason I just gave above).

Gee, Bill, why vote for another in the same mold as all the others? The more of us that vote Green the more notice the duopoly must take of us.

No, we want Ron Paul to allow us some peace of mind from insultingly cheesy fear mongering.

No, ‘we’ dont. More unemployed, less entitlements, privatisation of social security, less regulations on our predatory corporations, isolationism, and th ewhole crazy Ayn Rand package.

Why would I give a damn who answers government phones at 3 AM?

They’re all greedy, murdering sociopaths bent on currying favor with their corporate masters. Hell, you can put Charlie Manson there for all I care. He’s certainly no worse than every character in the white house since Jim Carter. And Jim was just a brief respite after criminally insane Nixon and war mongering LBJ.

If I were dumb enough to vote for this government, I’d vote for Eisenhower. I like Ike!

Save the country—get a new government!

The 3am call?  seriousry?

If you’re going to fear monger don’t settle for low hanging fruit-  Unaddressed, climate change will leave our planet uninhabitable.

Who’s going to answer that call?

This article is so lame, as pointed out, that it gets ink at TruthDig.

Ever wonder who pays the bills around here?

I do.

As if “the button” is “safe” in anybody’s frightfully skittish, immature, ego-centric hands!

Defuse the button, and whatever it is primed to eject, and the sooner the better. Coitus interruptus is the only solution, boys, since there ain’t no impervious “skin.”

Like this author, most people have a short term memory when it comes to what candidates say and do. A lot of people who voted for Obama and then criticized him will, when push comes to shove, vote for him again no matter what. So why complain about him at all! You get the feeling this article was written just to fill up space in a newspaper and doesn’t change anything at all as this author will just end up back where he started - supporting Obama.

I’d give good odds that Willard’s first response would be the same as Barack’s, “How can I help Wall Street make a boatload of money from this situation?”

Good to see comments exposing this as a load of crap. Obama is a war criminal, just like his predecessor; I personally don’t want any of these sociopaths answering “a 3 a.m. call.” How about the 3 a.m. call Iran is going to get when Israel and the U.S. attack?

As if Obama has pursued the thoughtful and prudent approach in military diplomacy and engagement!

Every four years the Democrat shills trot out this decrepit “lesser-evil” argument.  Every. Four. Damn. Years.

Could you at least TRY to come up with something just a little less pathetic?  How about the “SCOTUS appointments” argument?  It’s still bullcrap, but at least it’s slightly less ancient.

Answer: Very Lame.

Adios!

Just about as lame as Eugene usually is when it comes to partisan matters, I’d say.  No clue whatsoever that a Democratic party which doesn’t even try to deliver on its promises may actually constitute a greater danger than those nasty Republicans (because that Democratic party with its perpetual “lesser of two evils” mantra sucks the wind out of the sails of any better representation which we otherwise could vote in).

Getting rid of Obama as a strong lesson that if you don’t deliver you won’t get reelected seems more important to me than keeping a moderate Republican like Romney out of the White House (after all, we survived 8 years of considerably less moderate Bush/Cheney residence there).  I suspect that Romney would do just fine getting that 3 A.M. phone call, and have every intention of voting for him next November if he’s on the ballot (for the reason I just gave above).

Oh please, how lame is this?