Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
April 25, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

Truthdig Bazaar
Exiled in Paradise

Exiled in Paradise

Anthony Heilbut

more items

Email this item Print this item

Voters Have Two Candidates, No Choice

Posted on Mar 22, 2012
AP / Steven Senne

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks at the University of Chicago.

By Robert Scheer

With Mitt Romney’s super-PAC limo now on cruise control to victory at the GOP convention, voters are left with only two reasons to vote against Barack Obama: Either they are desperate to return a white man to the White House or they feel strongly that it is time to break the glass ceiling denying Mormons the presidency.

Out of a sense of tolerance I could cotton to the latter—heck, why should the bizarre beliefs of Romney’s church be a deal breaker? I’m hoping for a strong Jewish contender someday and wouldn’t like her burdened with defending Old Testament claptrap.

The problem in this mind-numbing Republican primary season is that the campaign has exposed Romney as not just another white male Mormon like some of the fairly reasonable senators who have represented Utah. Or like Romney’s own father, George, at one time the governor of Michigan. No, this Romney is now widely regarded as the vulture capitalist he is, a politician who is a say-and-do-anything opportunist with no moral limits on his outsized ambitions.

Nothing is sacred to the former Massachusetts governor, not even his own signature health plan that he sold to that state’s voters as the standard for rational government decision-making as regards the deep problems faced by our economy. The weaknesses of what Romney and the GOP deride as Obamacare have been all too obvious in the plan Romney touted in Massachusetts—a mandate to sign up without the cost restraints that a single-payer government program would offer. Now, with a new national plan from Rep. Paul Ryan emerging from the U.S. House, Romney and the Republican Party generally seek to compound that error by undermining Medicare and Medicaid, two programs that offer at least a modicum of cost control.  Instead, the candidate and his fellow Republicans would turn consumers over completely to the tender mercies of for-profit insurers.

The justification for gutting what little remains of enlightened government programs to aid the vulnerable is, of course, the dreaded federal deficit. (Lest we forget, seniors were foremost among the vulnerable until the arrival of the programs now under attack.) What is so outrageously hypocritical about the proposals from both Romney and Ryan is that they do not touch, and indeed would further open, the spending spigot that caused all of the red ink following President Bill Clinton’s budget-balancing act.


Square, Site wide
Both Romney and Ryan want to increase President George W. Bush’s tax breaks for the wealthy, which seriously cut revenues while treating as sacrosanct the Cold War levels in military spending that Bush put in place in a wildly irrational response to the 9/11 attacks. This week Ryan announced that defense spending is off-limits, and Romney has campaigned for an increase in what represents more than 40 percent of the non-mandated federal budget.

I can’t wait for the moment in a presidential debate when Romney talks about the need for even more advanced U.S. weaponry to counter the emerging military threat from Communist China and Obama ever so coolly points out that Bain Capital, the company that Romney co-founded, has been supplying those Red tyrants with surveillance equipment to better monitor their citizenry.

With Ron Paul’s fortunes as a presidential candidate declining, there is no pressure on GOP leaders to link a withdrawal from the imperial adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan with a reduced federal handout to the military-industrial complex. Nor will the Republican leadership confront the party’s responsibility for the nation’s economic collapse, the subsequent loss in tax revenues, and the Fed and Treasury policies that bailed out the Wall Street charlatans who invented this meltdown.

Instead of reining in Wall Street greed, the GOP is demanding a reversal of even the tepid efforts of the Obama administration to hold the financial industry accountable to honest business practices. And, at a time when the largest multinational companies have shifted jobs and profits abroad, the GOP stands for rewarding that betrayal of American workers by eliminating all taxes on overseas corporate profits.

The pity in all this is that a legitimate critique of the Obama record—present to some degree in the Paul dissection of the president’s war policy and his continuation of the Bush Wall Street bailout strategy—will not be heard in the general election debate. Instead, on the one hand, we will have Obama offering clever-sounding arguments for establishment policies that fail to deal with high unemployment, a brutal level of housing foreclosures and sharpening income inequality. And on the other hand there will be a Republican Party so steeped in the ethos of greed, racism and warmongering that it would leave even Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, were they alive, with no choice but to vote for Obama as the lesser evil.

They Know Everything About You -- A new book by Truthdig Editor Robert Scheer. Order an autographed copy now!

Lockerdome Below Article
Get a book from one of our contributors in the Truthdig Bazaar.

Related Entries

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every day.

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By allen, March 22, 2012 at 10:10 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

[On superPACs and the Republican Caucuses]

You may have noticed that after Romney’s victory in the Illinois caucus (caucuses?), Santorum complained that he had been defeated because of the superPAC money available to Romney.  (If I am not mistaken, I believe Santorum has his own superPAC.)

Reading the report of Santorum’s dissatisfaction with the Illinois results, I thought of a verse from a book near and dear to Mr. Santorum’s heart:

“As Ye Sow, So Shall Ye Reap.”  (23 Jeremiah 1-19)

[On Voter Choice or the Lack Thereof]

George Carlin summed things up nicely:  You have no choice in America.  Or, rather, you have the choice of smoking or non-smoking, paper or plastic, window or aisle.  As he put it, Americans have the ILLUSION OF CHOICE.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, March 22, 2012 at 10:04 am Link to this comment

Why… thethirdman, March 22 6:38 am - do you imagine power
creates itself?  Naw…power is what men want and will fight to the
death for it, or have others fight to their deaths for them for it.  They
would distribute it to themselves, surely you know that!  Gee don’t you
remember the lances you used in jousting?  Where do you stash your
armor?  Your horse?  What colors does your banner fly?  Your name
says you are the third man, who are first and second?

You may be right debolt, but imagine a more conservative
Supreme Court, imagine all the social programs that keep millions
of Americans from sinking in the swilling pig pen the Republicans
would rather them live and die in.  Imagine the many millions more
of human deaths from the wars they love to wage, especially the deaths
of our own young men.  Okay.  You certainly have as much right to your
opinion as I do have mine.

Report this

By catsberry, March 22, 2012 at 9:48 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The 2-Party system is a joke, as Scheer illustrates. 
It is not representative of the public, but instead
represents corporate America, the smallest but richest
minority of the population.  How can the US claim to be
spreading democracy around the world when it really
does not exist here at home in the good old US of A?

Report this

By Jeff N., March 22, 2012 at 9:23 am Link to this comment

entropy2, What kind of vision do you have for a system like this, what would be some steps towards getting there?  Would change come from within our existing government or would it be some kind of peoples coup d’etat.  Worker run factories, smaller anarchist communities, and OWS seem to be good examples of what you’re talking about, but the revolution that would have to take place in order to create this kind of society on a national scale has some logistical obstacles (especially in the US).  For one, “they got the guns”, which means we’d have to have the numbers as the Doors song goes.  Wondering what your thoughts on this are.

Report this

By oakland steve, March 22, 2012 at 9:14 am Link to this comment

From what early indoctrination does this feeling of absolute citizen obligation to vote arise?  If someone asked you to vote for your favorite cigarette, Winston or Marlboro; your favorite gas company, Shell of Exxon Mobil, you’d laugh and think them odd.  But here we have a bright, erudite and experienced Robert Scheer advising us to join him in casting a vote for someone who is evil.  Less evil than Romney, but evil. 

Honestly, why vote, if those are your only two choices?

I will vote for John Anderson, Ralph Nader or their latest incarnation…but I won’t vote for evil.  The claim that the US is a representative democracy has lost almost all legitimacy at this juncture.  The act of casting a ballot may just be an empty one now.

Report this

By TransistorRadio, March 22, 2012 at 8:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I have read a number of very good comments on this board here today.  Most of which have ended with the admonition to vote 3rd party and which I would have completely supported a few months ago.

But the real problem is the system itself which we think of as democratic but which is nothing even close.  If you vote at all, the voting machine can switch your vote so by voting you help the system retain a modicum of legitimacy which it doesn’t deserve.  What we must do instead is drive down voting turnout numbers - as an act of protest - to the point that the illegitimacy of the system itself becomes apparent to everyone.  It’s the perception of “legitimacy” which we must undermine.

Do your elected officials represent your interests in the performance of their duties?  Do they act with the desire to represent the good and will of the people, the citizens?  Does their party affiliation make a difference in terms of either of these questions?  If they do not represent you and you are convinced that they will not, then withhold your consent to be governed by them.  Withhold the air from the system which is corrupt and do not vote.

Report this

By ElkoJohn, March 22, 2012 at 8:47 am Link to this comment

Elections have become a contest between
Democrats ready to fulfill the GOP agenda
(in return for corporate funding)
and the GOP itself.

Obama signed the Patriot Act (spy on us)
the NDAA Act (imprison and assassinate us)
and not a single Democrat voted against
H.R. 347, the “Federal Restricted Buildings
and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011” which
threatens our political speech on government
owned property paid for by the voters.

The Democrats have not lifted one finger to get
the Big Money out of politics.

I’m forced to support the 3rd Party candidates
because I’m mad as hell, and I won’t take it anymore.

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, March 22, 2012 at 8:47 am Link to this comment

This column isn’t about religion, but Sheer seizes the opportunity to take swipes at the “bizziare beliefs” of Mormonism and Judaism’s “Old Testament claptrap.” 

Would he dare to criticize Islam this way?

I think not.
What do you think?

Report this
deboldt's avatar

By deboldt, March 22, 2012 at 8:43 am Link to this comment

Did I misread the headline? When Robert Scheer wrote “No Choice” I thought he meant we have no choice between two pro-Capitalist maniacs but that we have no choice but to vote for Obama. For anyone still unaware of my opinion on the lesser of two evils con—I will restate it.

If there has ever been a modern Democrat president less deserving of a second term than Barack Obama, I wish my Liberal friends would point him out to me.  Not only has he failed to deliver on nearly all his campaign promises in substance and letter (what else is new), but he has actually aggressively pursued policies of foreign policy, corruption and policy opacity that would have fevered a Neocon’s wet dream.  The saddest thing about the next election is that the Republican opposition to Obama have gone from their traditional ridiculous reality view to the sublime.  One wonders if the whole Republican line up of Presidential wannabes is not on the payroll of the Committee to re-elect the President.  I notice that Liberals are no longer emphasizing the dubious positive qualities of Obama but are more and more just trying to scare us with how bizarre the Republican candidates are.  I have to admit the Republicans are scary as hell.  That makes me wonder:  With a Billion dollar war chest, the President could easily buy the whole damn Republican Party and still balance his check book.  Will we be reading a news release years from now when there is no chance of doing anything about it (like Bush’s theft to two Presidential elections) that “Sources revealed today that the Committee to Re-elect the President sent a check for a half a Billion dollars to the Republican National Committee guaranteeing they would continue to maintain their scary, reality challenged, absurd stances on domestic and foreign policy in order to present Obama as the only rational choice in the 2012 election.”?  The totally disabled electoral process in this country has now left us with only the choice of one of two hand baskets to Hell.  The Democrat hand basket is a little better cushioned and will arrive at the infernal gates slightly later than the Republican one.  With either Party in the driver’s seat, the arrival is no longer anymore a question of if but when.

Report this

By Jeff N., March 22, 2012 at 8:37 am Link to this comment

thethirdman, an interesting point.  Ideas of anarchism do seem more compatible with smaller groups, but I don’t see any reason why our obsession with power and domination cannot become subdued and/or evolved to the point where we can live in a society free from tyranny and oppression.  It will certainly take a great deal of psychological and spiritual maturity, something that is not in great abundance among the global elite today.

Report this

By jimmmmmy, March 22, 2012 at 8:13 am Link to this comment

Ardee great response.

Report this

By jimmmmmy, March 22, 2012 at 8:11 am Link to this comment

Hackerkat I agree with you on Obama. but get real Ron paul is an 80 year old political insider who has been in government for 40 years or so, and has helped create the mess were in now. He’s the repub. version of Bernie Sanders

Report this

By abikecommuter, March 22, 2012 at 8:05 am Link to this comment

The spoils of SNAFU management, Obamney, float to the top.

So how would you unbundle this SNAFU? I think it’s the airways on the volume side from
cell phones to TV which should be user tier priced and dividend back. And the access to
bandwidth on the distance side so rural areas advertising would pay more than city

Report this

By jimmmmmy, March 22, 2012 at 8:05 am Link to this comment

Mr. Scheer . I have a large respect for your body of work. That being said I think your fear mongering of a Romney presidency is baseless If you put their records side by side two things become obvious . Both men are liars. Romney has had a much longer run as a professional pol. and corporate insider. If you look just at their records Romney is slightly to the left of Obama when in office. I wouldn’t vote for either one. The only hope for “poor” Americans is that people like Chris Hedges , may come up with a way to turn the security forces against the 1%ers, ala East Germany in 89 At any rate the position of potus is now a second tier job below Bankster or oil baron. So who signs the orders at this point is moot.

Report this
entropy2's avatar

By entropy2, March 22, 2012 at 8:00 am Link to this comment

@thethirdman - valid speculation. Personally, I don’t give a crap.

I MAY choose to withdraw MY support of a hierarchy. YOU MAY choose to withdraw YOUR support of a hierarchy. Then YOU AND I MAY choose to cooperate with each other in a relationship based on interdependence, trust and shared needs between EQUAL INDIVIDUALS. Then maybe a whole s**tload of us individuals MAY CHOOSE to do the same. (See a pattern here?)

We have the power, we just CHOOSE not to use it. Like Steve Biko said: “The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.”

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, March 22, 2012 at 7:42 am Link to this comment

“...voters are left with only two reasons to vote against Barack Obama: Either they are desperate to return a white man to the White House or they feel strongly that it is time to break the glass ceiling denying Mormons the presidency.”

So vote against Obama and either you’re
1) a racist
2) bent on having a Morman president
3) irrational

But it just ain’t so.

Spin it however you like—but it’s about the Economy.—_and_how_to_beat_him

Report this

By thethirdman, March 22, 2012 at 7:38 am Link to this comment


Do we really choose to concentrate power in individuals and hierarchies, or are we
part of an evolutionary process where systems of power seem to organize and
emerge based on our deep psychological requirements?  Almost like a design flaw
in our DNA that worked very well in small groups but goes haywire when groups
grow too large to keep human relationships balanced.  I was always fascinated
when Aristotle spoke of the kyklos and I wonder why history does seem to cycle
through a fairly recognizable pattern of political power.  Perhaps our choice is
even more limited that we can imagine?

Report this

By Disgruntled, March 22, 2012 at 7:32 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It is elections such as face us this fall that make me wish that in voting, one would be able to not only vote for a given candidate, but also provide a rating value on, e.g., a scale from -3 to +3.  That way, after a winner was announced, not only could the number of votes received be reported, but (a) a histogram of the rating values given to that person, and (b) the mean of the rating values given.  Reporting of the latter two items might help reduce the winner’s arrogance, and make her/him a better leader.
Oh, excuse me, I just woke up, and realize that I had been dreaming!

Report this
entropy2's avatar

By entropy2, March 22, 2012 at 7:27 am Link to this comment


Until there is a People’s Party that is solidly anchored in the “liberal” values that distributes power and resources among the entire population, that is when I will find another political haven outside of the Democrats.

In other words…never.

When and, more importantly, how does power ever distribute itself?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, March 22, 2012 at 7:17 am Link to this comment

With fear and trepidation that an opinion at variance with the
cluster of truthdippers who usually ventilate their angry and
furious sentiments will bring down the wrath of the most vicious
egocentric bigots on this fundamentalist liberal, this mainstream
liberal, I take utterly serious the warning of The Lesser Evil Argument. 
Until there is a People’s Party that is solidly anchored in the “liberal”
values that distributes power and resources among the entire
population, that is when I will find another political haven outside
of the Democrats.  With all of its faults, all of its warty politicians,
imperfect men and women who go through the motions of running
the government, no other political organization has come forward as
a shining example of those values that I hold in the highest esteem as
the basis of a good government.

I am not unreceptive to other clear and convincing courses of action,
but so far there has been only acrimony and very little in the way of a
national voice for any other political views.  I am a pragmatist and a
realist, and know full well that many Democrats of today who are in
power positions of government are often swayed by the wave of a
corporate dollar, too many, and that we as a people have lost and are
losing ground of a nation that manifestly upholds the equality of all
people in its political, social, and economic nature. 

Sheer has taken a similar pragmatic beaten path.  We all sometimes have
had to take foul tasting, foul smelling medicine when there is a sickness,
not treatable any other way.  But the facts are we do not have the
material wherewithal to make sweeping changes.  If there were an
authentically real third-party movement with strong and secure values
and spokespersons who would eloquently and convincingly acclaim its
virtues, then they would attract a great number of the disaffected,
including myself.

As I have stated consistently and innumerable times, my personal
intention is to defeat the Republicans from gaining complete control of
this country in the highest office of the land and to reduce their potency
in the Congress.  This Party has only one thing in mind and that is to
forcibly defile the general population. The words pillage and plunder are
not words relegated to the Middle Ages.  It is their current and sole
program.  To do that, to stop them, I will go with the numbers.  It is the
most practical and sober means of achieving my goal. I realize I have to
dilute my liberal values and lump it.  The numbers are represented only
in the arguably opposition party to the Right-Wing Extremists, the
Democrats If anyone wants to attack me for that determination, you can
of course, but it will be incumbent on you to offer a more realizable

Report this
entropy2's avatar

By entropy2, March 22, 2012 at 7:11 am Link to this comment

My response is *yawn*. I’m so tired of this hand-wringing over “why oh why can’t we get good leaders?”

Look, WE CHOOSE to concentrate huge levels of power over our lives in the hands of individuals and hierarchies.

- Then we wonder why that concentration of power attracts sociopaths and crooks who proceed to fleece us or oppress us.

- Then we wonder how, in the hands of incompetents, that concentrated power wreaks immense havoc on MANY individuals’ lives.

- And we wonder why we are always, in varying degrees, disappointed and disgusted by the scale of waste, or horrified and terrified by the scale of destruction that comes from the use of that concentrated power.

If YOU accept the inevitability of YOUR personal dependence on hierarchies, then stop whining and get over it. There is no hierarchical system that is immune to this reality. And the larger a hierarchy gets, the more damage it causes AND the more vulnerable it is to sociopaths, crooks and incompetents. It’s just how concentrated power works.

Get over it or change it.

Now, we have the raw material and the tools in front of us to create a new society, based on interdependence and shared benefit. We are the building blocks—all we need to do is assemble ourselves according to OUR shared values and OUR shared needs. If we put that power in someone else’s hands, then we shouldn’t be surprised when THEIR values (or lack thereof) determine the result.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, March 22, 2012 at 7:10 am Link to this comment

By now, I would hope that any last holdouts supporting their beloved parties had finally come to their senses and realized what the globalists have done to decimate our democratic republic. No, there is no Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, and Romney and Obama have no intentions of letting you know what they are being directed to do by the elites.

The Trilateral Commission’s goals (i.e. David Rockefeller, etc.) have been to take control of the US government and the governments of every nation on the planet. Their goal is to strip away any shred of national unity, pride, ethnic identity and any sovereignty that any country may have had to keep its individuals as a cohesive group. Why? So that, as author Holly Sklar has suggested, the elites can “discourage protectionism, nationalism, or any response that would pit the elites of one [country] against the elites of another. The anticipated economic pressures will be deflected downward rather than laterally.” To them, all this population reduction, carbon taxes, creation of wars and control of the world’s resources hasn’t been to more efficiently manage the human population; it has been to assure that no other group(s) be able to displace them from their self-appointed perches.

Now we can begin to see how this disease has festered. Corruptible individuals, passing themselves off as servants of the public, have been lying and stealing to save themselves in what they perceive is a sinking ship. These people would steal the lifejackets from children. The Bushes, the Clintons, Obama, McCain, Romney, Santorum, they’re all a part of this. Put another way, no presidential candidate ever made it to office in the last 50 years WITHOUT being a part of this. Presidents have been picked, not elected. JFK was but I believe had a change of conscience and we see where that got him. Carter, whom I thought was the only guy clean of all this was as deep into this as any of them. His middle name should have been Trilateral. What a betrayal to the American people .... and that goes for the rest of them. No integrity whatsoever. Barry Goldwater was smeared as being a far-right conservative whacko, when all he tried to do was inform the American people of the truth.

Ron Paul is the only one left who isn’t corrupted and sadly, they may arrange an “accident” for him too.

Report this

By hackerkat, March 22, 2012 at 7:09 am Link to this comment

“voters are left with only two reasons to vote against Barack Obama: Either they are desperate to return a white man to the White House or they feel strongly that it is time to break the glass ceiling denying Mormons the presidency.”

This statement is an insult to those who oppose Obama due to his war-mongering, economic policies (support for bank bailout and lack of support for meaningful bank reforms), environmental policies and, very importantly, continual undermining of the rights granted to US citizens by the constitution.

Voting for the lesser of evils is still voting for evil as I learned to my chagrin after voting for Obama in 2008. I will never make that mistake again.

Rocky Anderson for President 2012

Report this

By ACT I, March 22, 2012 at 6:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Old Testament claptrap”?  Granted that there IS some there, but have you read, e.g., Daniel Maguire’s A Moral Creed for all Christians?  You will then learn that the Old Testament contains some of the most enlightened thinking that has ever been done.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, March 22, 2012 at 6:11 am Link to this comment

QUOTE, Robert Scheer:

“With Mitt Romney’s super-PAC limo now on cruise control to victory at the GOP convention, voters are left with only two reasons to vote against Barack Obama: Either they are desperate to return a white man to the White House or they feel strongly that it is time to break the glass ceiling denying Mormons the presidency.”

Self-restricting choice between only the (R) or the (D) candidate of the corporate party is only true of people who are dedicated to the corporate party… only true of the people who ensure that evil always wins.

The greater evil (D) dedicated never miss any opportunity to ensure that elections are not used for good purpose.

The astroturfed 2008 media crazed Obamamaniac voters have claimed they didn’t vote for what Obama is. The 2012 Obama voters will leave no doubt that they are irredeemably deeply depraved lying liberals.

Jill Stein for President:

Voter Consent Wastes Dissent:

Report this

By Jeff N., March 22, 2012 at 6:01 am Link to this comment

The GOP is certainly long past the point of absurdity with their proposals, but in a political system built on money it certainly makes sense to cater to the rich with lower taxes, slashing spending, and promoting deregulation across the board.  What’s the point of fighting for the worker’s vote when they don’t contribute anything to your election?  Just placate them with empty nationalistic slogans about freedom and class warfare while you hunt for the big fish.

If the predictions are correct, we’ll have Obama for four more years with a GOP congress.. awesome. Spring is here, time for OWS to get things going strong.

Report this
prisnersdilema's avatar

By prisnersdilema, March 22, 2012 at 5:44 am Link to this comment

Some how I wonder, how Mr. Scheer can come to the conclusion, that voting will
prevent the dismantling of whats left of the safety net. Mr. Obama’s constant
betrayals, and stated willingness to negotiate on social security, are a problem
that can’t be ignored. Will he be any different? Unlikely, in a second term, with no
reason to continue being a fake, he is likely, to finish the job of cutting this
countries throat.

On the other hand, a white weasel presidency of George Romney, would present,
an opportunity for the Republican Gestapo headed by Paul Ryan, to push through
his detailed plans for the destruction of the American people, basically it would
offer the choice of saving lives or saving money for the wealthy. Do you have any
doubts about which one the Republican party would prefer? 

Meanwhile the American people, are already making a choice, they are turning
away from so called medicine, and its FDA approved poisonings in record
numbers. The insurance companies have viewed this with glee as it is partly
responsible for their record profits. Unfortunately it means something else. It
means that the people of this country have realized underneath all the slick adds
and manipulations that American health care has been so gutted by the
corporations, it has nothing to offer.

WIth daily revelations about the dangers of medical treatments that do much more
harm than good, and national mental health outcomes far worse than the nation of
Nigeria, the public has realized they are better off turning to alternative
treatments. This is why the FDA has decided to allow the selling of scores
prescribed medications over the counter. 

The American people have lost trust in the corporations, whose number one
product is poison. They have poisoned everything, from the air we breath, the
food we eat, the health care system we used to try to recover from the other
poisons, and the the very ideas we think through corporate media.

Fortunately, the people are beginning to catch on to all the lies.

There is another choice, one that requires a little time and won’t happen over
night, investing your votes in third party candidates and independents who offer
the best chance for a decent future for the people of this country.

Report this
thecrow's avatar

By thecrow, March 22, 2012 at 5:02 am Link to this comment

At least with these venal shitweasels you know what you’re getting. Besides, at this point the gutless American public deserves the ravages of predatory capitalism.

“What this election tells me, unfortunately, is that it doesn’t matter to most Americans if their government lies to them repeatedly.

They no longer care if their leaders erode their civil liberties, push this country further towards a police state, or shroud their actions in additional layers of official secrecy.

They don’t mind if their government operates strictly for the benefit of the rich and the corporate class, as long as their own taxes don’t go up.

Nor do they care if their government spends itself to the brink of bankruptcy. As long as they feel threatened by some external evil, everything is permitted.”

- Gary Webb, 2004

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, March 22, 2012 at 5:02 am Link to this comment

We should not get wrapped up in the presidential race.  Perhaps election reform will come if we end the duopoly in the house, and state houses.

Report this

By ardee, March 22, 2012 at 4:53 am Link to this comment

With all due respect for Mr.Scheers limited vision of American politics I refuse to accept that voting for one corporatist is ultimately different than voting for the other.

Obama has filled his White House with the blackest of corporate CEO’s and speaks to halting the flow of money to fewer and fewer? He appoints Jeff Immelt, CEO of a company that has outsourced more jobs than most, to a panel that is supposed to create jobs domestically.

Obama has bloody hands up to his elbows, he has slaughtered three American citizens without recourse to rule of law, he has continued the policies of George W. Bush unabated, his administration is more secretive than even that last one was.

Voting ones conscience may be an idea foreign to Mr. Scheer, voting in a way that signals ones own desire for the path of American politics away from BOTH corporatist parties, voting for third parties that seem our only hope of keeping Progressive ideas and ideals alive , are all far better actions than voting for a man who has broken his every promise, waffled and displayed repeated cowardice and even incompetence.

Mr. Scheers offers voting against Romney, I offer that voting against both of them, two corporatists who will leave the CEO’s in charge of our nations legislatures and laws is ones duty, obligation and the only reasoned path to change that is nonviolent.

This is Mr. Scheers best effort?

Report this
BrooklynDame's avatar

By BrooklynDame, March 22, 2012 at 4:43 am Link to this comment

Ouch! Scathing commentary—and brilliantly observant as usual, Mr. Scheer!

By now, there should be no doubt about where a vote should be placed on election

Report this

By bigchin, March 22, 2012 at 2:52 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


I can easily choose to not vote for Obama and still not vote for a Republican.

and I will.

Obama is a fraud.

De-elect our murderer-in-chief.

Report this

Page 2 of 2 pages  <  1 2

Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook