Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 18, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

On Climate, Business as Usual




The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar
The China Reader: The Reform Era (Vintage)

The China Reader: The Reform Era (Vintage)

By Orville Schell and David Shambaugh

more items

 
Report

Watch Your Back, Barack

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jun 15, 2011
AP / Jim Cole

And then, a flood of words: a view of the Manchester, N.H., stage moments before the first Republican presidential debate of the 2012 race began Monday evening.

By Bill Boyarsky

Viewing the Republican presidential debate was two hours of sheer misery, mixed with a foreboding that one of these people could defeat President Barack Obama.

Two hours of grinning, smug Mitt Romney, crowned the winner and front-runner by a media pack that has learned nothing from its misjudgments in 2008. Two hours of Rep. Michele Bachmann, the journalists’ choice as co-winner, well prepped to hide her far-right extremism with a smile. Her performance was enough to con the pundits into elevating this fringe candidate to “star is born” status.

Then there were the other five, tossed unceremoniously—at least for now—on political journalism’s scrap heap. In fact, Romney and Bachmann might end up there, too, if the Texas tea party darling, Gov. Rick Perry, or Sarah Palin enters the race. This crop of candidates promises four or eight years of wrong-headed, right-wing government run on the principles of anti-abortion and extreme Christian fundamentalism.

But as bad as this lineup is, whoever gets the nomination will have the advantage of running against a president crippled by hopeless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and by 9.1 percent unemployment.

All a Republican has to do to win is to appear sane, maybe even reasonable, and to campaign with the deadly message that Romney had in Monday’s debate:

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
“... We have more chronic long-term [unemployment] than this country has ever seen before. ... We’ve got housing prices continuing to decline, and we have foreclosures at record levels. This president has failed. And he’s failed at a time when the American people counted on him to create jobs and get the economy growing.”

These are dangerous words for Obama because there is some truth in them.

Chronic unemployment has become a way of life, threatening to damage families economically and psychologically for generations. 

Housing prices are continuing to decline. Homes, once thought to represent economic security, are just the opposite in many places around the country. “Underwater,” once thought of as meaning submerged, now is the well-known description of a house and mortgage worth far less than the purchase price.

Foreclosures have become a big part of American life. They may have slowed during the slight recovery from the recession, but the Obama administration has been unable to stop them in any meaningful way.

And it is true, as Romney said, that the America people counted on Obama to create jobs and get the economy going. He campaigned on a vague promise of hope delivered in an inspiring manner, inspiring enough to convince an electoral majority that he could do it. 

In fact, he was elected by the recession. And if the recession continues at the present pace, he could be defeated by it.

That is why Romney’s most telling words were “the president has failed.” This line resonates with unemployed and frightened 2008 Obama voters.

The president is given to moments of admirable gutsiness—Osama bin Laden, the health care law—followed by long periods of aimlessness and silence. There are also pointless meetings behind closed doors on the war, the deficit and the economy.

The plans that have emerged from the meetings on the economy have “mindless bureaucracy” written all over them: A group of the most earnest people, no doubt graduates of elite universities, labor for days working the prerequisite long hours to hammer out a consensus so weak that it is meaningless. The declarations sound as though they were written by assistants who were afraid of getting bawled out for saying something daring or unpopular.

An example was Obama’s radio address last week. He started out with admirable frankness, saying, “I wish I could tell you there was a quick fix to our economic problems. But the truth is, we didn’t get into this mess overnight, and we won’t get out of it overnight. It’s going to take time.”

After hearing him state the problem, a listener wants a solution, Here’s what he said: He has “commitments by the private sector, colleges, and the National Association of Manufacturers that will make it possible for 500,000 community college students to get a manufacturing credential that has the industry’s stamp of approval.”

That makes no sense. The private sector is not hiring, The National Association of Manufacturers, a group long sympathetic to the Republicans, opposes Obama’s major policy initiatives, including health reform. And in regard to the community colleges, their budgets are being slashed around the country, with their students unable to find classes they need to graduate. This Obama plan is locked in unreality, conceived by policy wonks unfamiliar with the real world.

I hate to say it, but Obama seems like one of them too much of the time. That won’t beat a Republican candidate who will be rehearsed and made presentable by the party’s experienced and tricky image-makers.


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.

PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, June 21, 2011 at 5:42 pm Link to this comment

ardee,

I’m well read on Ron Pauls policies and while I don’t agree on them all I share his view on the major ones.

I see you still are operating on the principle of random bull shit, criticising what you don’t care to understand.

Someone needs to come into government and cut the bloated waste and abuse.  If you make your money riding the tax dollar gravy train, you may be SOL with Ron Paul in office.

Report this

By ardee, June 21, 2011 at 3:32 am Link to this comment

PatrickHenry, June 19 at 6:00 pm

You continue to post as if no one here has read up on libertarian politics or listened to Paul’s speeches and read his articles. You continue to post as if you have not done so yourself.

Are you operating on the principle of the Big Lie? Hint: it isnt working.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, June 20, 2011 at 1:21 pm Link to this comment

The bailout went to most of the wrong places like the banks and such instead of the people. That is why so many were getting it who caused our near meltdown.

Obama is a pragmatist and found that the Reich wing side is the more powerful side despite its lack of numbers and support by the common person. So he in the end works for them. They want more war he gets it done. More police state actions like freeing the FBI of the Constitution/Bill of Rights then it happens. Even to making it very hard to get a passport to go anywhere works in the oligarchs’ favor over our own.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, June 19, 2011 at 6:00 pm Link to this comment

ardee,

Excepting for the MIC which would be financially hurt by Paul’s isolationist policies

Isolationist policies? says who, you?  I know you don’t mean interventionalist policies like we have now.

Just because Ron Paul doesn’t want to police the world and meddle in other nations affairs, doesn’t make him isolationist. 

It makes him more sane than the other candidates.

Report this

By tedmurphy41, June 19, 2011 at 4:48 am Link to this comment

If Barack Obama had shown some backbone, even at this late stage, his re-election would have been a formality, against any opposition.
As it is, he has left himself exposed as another “would’ve been/could’ve been” great President of the United States, having found the Oval office too big for his small ambitions/talents and weak character.
He now realises that it takes more than just good sound bites and woolly promises to run America for the benefit of ALL Americans and to attain and then maintain an ethical foreign policy.

Report this

By ardee, June 18, 2011 at 5:44 pm Link to this comment

PatrickHenry, June 18 at 12:15 pm Link to this comment

If Ron Paul was for Corporations as other here have suggested, he would have won the last election.

Why?  Because YOU say so?  Excepting for the MIC which would be financially hurt by Paul’s isolationist policies please denote another instance of Paul being anti-corporation…..I did say please.

The man is for the deregulation of every govt watchdog agency, thus freeing our oh so scrupulously honest corporations to commit further rapine and pillage. Coupled with his passion for an ending of welfare and other social programs, and his desire to privatize social security, his agenda spells ruination for all of us not corporate toadies on some Board some where.

Report this

By Conden, June 18, 2011 at 2:49 pm Link to this comment

Yes, wrong paul is for the radical expansion of corporate power; anyone with half a brain can see that.  Thankfully, there is a young generation in this country that is not going to stand for the ignorant kneejerks of right wing texan baby boomers, and will fight for social and economic justice, will not enter an “alliance” with the far-right that means giving up everything they believe in.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, June 18, 2011 at 12:15 pm Link to this comment

If Ron Paul was for Corporations as other here have suggested, he would have won the last election.

Corporately owned media shut him down, despite raising record grassroots financing as for as the media was concerned he fell off the planet.

He scares the hell out of them and I like it.

Report this

By Numbers, June 18, 2011 at 11:52 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As long as the right wingers are unhappy I am happy.  After eight years of bush I am not fond of americans and enjoy watching them suffer.

Report this

By ardee, June 18, 2011 at 4:33 am Link to this comment

mc.murphy, June 17 at 2:38 pm Link to this comment

ardee, June 17 at 1:32 pm

“Single issue voters are a dangerous lot, as is ignorance in general.”

That’s an incredible, jaw dropping statement. Let’s see, being anti militarism
and anti corporatism, ...

Let me use simple language so perhaps you can actually follow a thought.

Ron Paul is PRO-CORPORATION you dolt! Ending all regulatory powers of government plays directly into the trending towards fascism ( corporate ownership of government) we have been experiencing for decades.

You are either a very stupid man or a troll come here to push a nonexistent alliance with progressive voters. Not gonna happen , now back under your bridge.

Report this

By ardee, June 18, 2011 at 4:29 am Link to this comment

Michael Cavlan RN, June 17 at 3:48 pm Link to this comment

Ardee

You are one of those Obama, Democrat apologists that I am speaking about. There is no hopey-changey for you (sorry folks, couldn’t help myself)

Back from the dead, huh? But still as brain dead as ever. Because I post the facts about the political aims of Ron Paul and the whites only Libertarians I must, perforce be a supporter of Obama. You are an obviously intellectually challenged dolt who wastes time and space with your postings. Ill considered and thoughtless drivel!

FYI Jackwagon, I have voted three times for Nader, never once for a Democratic candidate for President. I am an independent voter registered Green because I believe they need the numbers. Of course none of that is important to a close minded simpilton like yourself. So sad.

Perhaps the admins will take pity on us all and “ban” you again.

Report this

By johncp, June 17, 2011 at 11:52 pm Link to this comment

Hey MR:
You say, “Obama beat Hillary soundly(?)”  You’re imgining things.  Hillary actually beat Obama in the popular vote.  Obama had a narrow vitory over Hillary, with the delegates, because of corrupt party politics, republican cross-over votes that were meant by those republican voters to beat Hillary, by corruption by some of Obama’s people, in some States, but most of all, by immense main-stream, conservative, corporate campaign contributions from Goldman-Saches, and the like.  I challenge you to tell me, why Obama received such immense corporate contributions for his campaign against Hillary, from Goldman-Sachs?

Report this

By johncp, June 17, 2011 at 11:45 pm Link to this comment

MR
Obama beat Hillary “soundly(?)”  You’re imagining things.  Hillary, believe it or not, actually won the popular vote by a hair.  Obama won, by a narrow margin over Hillary with the delegates, because of corrupt party politics and a measure of corruption from the Obama people in some States.  Most of all, Obama won with immense main-stream, conservative, corporate media help.  He received more campaign money for his fraudulent run against Hillary, from Goldman-Sachs.  Can you tell me why Goldman-Sachs, one of them most profit-hungry and undemocratic corporate forces in this country, would contribute so much money to the Obama campaign?  I dare you to tell me why?

Report this

By the worm, June 17, 2011 at 8:49 pm Link to this comment

It’s the American people who need to watch their backs, because it is Barak
Obama who’s been doing the back stabbing.

Obama on the four biggest issues of his presidency:

1. TARP & Financial Bailout: Over 70% of us opposed the bailout. Obama ?
accelerated it with Geithner and Bernanke - both Bush carryovers embraced by
Obama.

2 . Health Care: 72% of us supported “a government-administered insurance ??
plan—something like Medicare for those under 65—that would compete for ??
customers with private insurers.” Supporting Max Baucus, Obama blocked
hearings on single payer and ?chocked off true health care reform.

3. The Debt and Fair Taxes: Washington Post-ABC poll Washington Post-ABC ?
poll, Spring 2011: 72 percent support raising taxes on the rich - including 68 ?
percent of Independents and 54 percent of Republicans. Obama twice ?
‘bargained’ to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

4. Afghanistan: 64% of us opposed expanding the war in Afghanistan and
wanted to disentangle from Bush-era ‘War on Terror’ and ‘preventive war’ ?
policies. Today, over 70% of Americans oppose the war. Obama continues it.

And so, whose back and who needs to watch and who’s been doing the back
stabbing.

Sure, many of us will ‘vote against’ a Republican (yeah yeah), but many people
will no longer vote for Obama, precisely because their wishes were known, were
clear and were ignored.

It’s wasnt just a few people whose wishes were ignored; it was the majority of
American voters.

We voted for the guy, because we thought he was something and he proved to
be another - sort of a Bush-lite guy with no guts. That’s not enough to get
votes. Obama has screwed the pooch by (1) just not doing a damn thing or (2)
doing the same old Republican thing. That’s not going to get him any votes. If
we wanted him to do nothing, there’s no need to vote for him and, if we wanted
him to be a Republican, we might as well vote for the other candidate.

I dont understand were Obama believes his support will come from (Im talking
good economy or bad); Obama has simply been a bust.

i cant say Im more disappointed in Obama than I have been in any candidate I
ever voted for. I admit I voted once for a Republican (Reagan), because he
pledged to balance the budget; by cutting taxes, he ran the highest deficit ever.
So, sure I’ve had disappointments before. But Reagan was a Republican and
governed as a Republican; Obama is a Democrat and governs either like he’s
not there or as a Republican.

Again, I say, there’s some of us who’ll vote against a Republican, but there are
few who will vote for Obama.

The reason is Obama stabbed us in the back. He doesnt need to watch his back,
he realizes he has little support left period. He will be running as a hallow man.

Report this

By ocjim, June 17, 2011 at 8:27 pm Link to this comment

Obama must know that he appears to be a shill for the rich. He gives lip service to the people occasionally sounding sincere but he wants that $1 billion to get re-elected. He knows he must court the rich not the people for that money.

He had a chance to do something right—a meaningful stimulus—when the economy was tanking and all were desperate. He blew it right away by listening to demagogic and hypocritical Republicans, who haven’t an ounce of decency.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, June 17, 2011 at 5:00 pm Link to this comment

Condom,

I’m going to support people who will bring us full employment where everyone makes a living, equal wage at democratic workers cooperatives, and free healthcare, college education, guaranteed housing, organic food and clean water are recognized as human rights.  I will support people who actually fight against the chemical and fossil fuel industries, as opposed to propping them up like wrong paul does.

A chicken in every pot. 

Are you for real?  The fools paradise you just described has been promised by every congresscritter since Washington. 

Time for a new direction and getting our liberties back.

Report this

By Conden, June 17, 2011 at 4:32 pm Link to this comment

Where is your fake pandering and empty defense now, mcmurphy?  No, it is peeled back and we see you for what you really are; a corporatist gremlin who wants to kill any opportunity for social/economic justice.  Well, guess what, while you are wasting your time propping up the two party system via wrong paul, I’m going to support people who will bring us full employment where everyone makes a living, equal wage at democratic workers cooperatives, and free healthcare, college education, guaranteed housing, organic food and clean water are recognized as human rights.  I will support people who actually fight against the chemical and fossil fuel industries, as opposed to propping them up like wrong paul does.

Report this

By Michael Cavlan RN, June 17, 2011 at 3:52 pm Link to this comment

MCMurphy

Thanks for the heads up about Firedoglake although I believe that they have undergone a political transformation (for the record, I had been banned from posting at Truthdig but have recently regained my ability to post)

I will keep an eye out about FDL as I had seen that tendency in the past but I seriously seen a real change there.

I strongly suspect that president Oily-Bomber can be thanked for that.

Report this

By mc.murphy, June 17, 2011 at 3:51 pm Link to this comment

Conden, June 17 at 3:09 pm

“With electoral reforms, the libertarian scum would be a minority, the left a
majority; no need for an “alliance.”

And who will get these electoral reforms in place before 2012 (other than an
outright revolution?)

You are a hack for the status quo, TG. a minority hack as time goes on. Your
numbers do not add up in real time, and thus you are, in effect, ensuring the
status quo (which you love, and Sanders, Nader and Paul revile) eating our lunch
again.

Report this

By Michael Cavlan RN, June 17, 2011 at 3:48 pm Link to this comment

Ardee

You are one of those Obama, Democrat apologists that I am speaking about. There is no hopey-changey for you (sorry folks, couldn’t help myself) I happen to know quite a few Ron Paul supporters and find them quite sane and articulate. Some are 9-11 Truthers, some believe in that wacky old Constitution and Bill of Rights, other belive in ending illegal wars and others are opposed to corporate power and money in the democratic process.

Are some of them right wing, racist, off the deep end fruit-loops? Of course, but not all of them. But you and Democrat apologists like you are detirmined to never see that and no facts can ever change you. You are the typical Obamabot that lefty cartoonist Ted Rall spoke of.

There is no hope for you.

Report this

By mc.murphy, June 17, 2011 at 3:43 pm Link to this comment

Conden, June 17 at 3:09 pm

“he never said to register republican and vote for wrong paul at the polls…”

and if he did you’d call him a traitor, right?!

well, it’s likely you’ll get a chance to do that, too.

http://mosquitocloud.net/progressive-libertarian-alliance/

Report this

By Laurence Tribe, June 17, 2011 at 3:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

DAVE2x3: We disagree on the notion that the elites who own the nation want rioting in the streets. It may come to that but an army travels on its stomach and, unfortunately, most of the folk who disagree with the course this nation is taking, not being among the socialist elite, are already hungry and will readily accept any “solution” proposed by those who caused the problem in the first place. I’m surprised that few if any readers of this website consider The Fed a huge contributor to the demise of this nation. A people who allow a private corporation to own and control their currency and thereby prosper at the expense of The People probably deserve what they get. This is no longer, if ever, a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people. It’s just another in a long line of nations where power and authority is centralized and controlled by a power elite.

Report this

By omygodnotagain, June 17, 2011 at 3:34 pm Link to this comment

daveZx3,
I agree with your analysis, and I think if you look at Niall Ferguson’s “Ascent of Money”, you will read about a well known French banking family that has been doing this for centuries… in 1828 their founder was described by a British Member of Parliament, as “Master of unbounded wealth, he boasts that he is the arbiter of peace and war, and that the credit of nations depends upon his nod” (p79).

That family went on to support the Bolshevik Revolution, World War 1 and help mold the disastrous treaty that led to WW2, more recently with criminals of the same ethnic persuasion they tried to take over Russia, but were swathed by Putin.

And they can’t be criticized or you get a character haircut

Report this

By Conden, June 17, 2011 at 3:09 pm Link to this comment

How sad and pathetic that people think they can come here and shove right wing economic ideas down our throats in the guise of an “alliance” where the tea partying, corporatist scum like wrong paul don’t give anything up, but we are expected to sacrifice everything for their republican party zeal.  And they pretend that this is anything related to what Ralph Nader has said; he never said to register republican and vote for wrong paul at the polls, like the internet trolls want us to do.  People in congress create their own little voting blocks; but that has nothing to do with parties or the presidency. 

So no, if we throw out corporate fascists like wrong paul, we still have own far-left candidates, and don’t needs yours, so stuff it.  With electoral reforms, the libertarian scum would be a minority, the left a majority; no need for an “alliance.”

Report this
James M. Martin's avatar

By James M. Martin, June 17, 2011 at 2:54 pm Link to this comment

I’m not buying that Obama will turn out to be another Georgia peanut farm president.  (Which is not to say anything evil of Carter; the man is a saint in my book.)  Every one of the GOP candidates so far is objectionable to the majority of the American electorate.  Every one.  Now that the debate, comment, and blogging have shown us how mealy mouthed Pawwwwwwlenty is, how hypocritical Romney on the issue of jobs, how objectionable Bachmann and Santorum for their bizarre fundamentalist/Catholic religious beliefs, how fuddy duddy if sometimes shrewd Paul can be, and how cheesy and bufuddled Little Caesar Cain can be—well, these is slim pickin’s.  You read it here: FOUR MORE YEARS.

Report this

By mc.murphy, June 17, 2011 at 2:38 pm Link to this comment

ardee, June 17 at 1:32 pm

“Single issue voters are a dangerous lot, as is ignorance in general.”

That’s an incredible, jaw dropping statement. Let’s see, being anti militarism
and anti corporatism, — the two main sources of most off the miseries around
the globe—is just not enough, because ardee is missing the bow on this divorce
cake.

And unless he gets his bow, he will gladly make the rest of the world suffer
militarism, and corporatism. That’s narcissism writ large, with cognitive
dementia on top.

sheesh…

Report this

By Bird48, June 17, 2011 at 2:26 pm Link to this comment

To say the “the president is given to admirable moments of gutsiness—Osama Bin Laden, the health care law—” is to buy into the two biggest photo ops of his entire presidency. I knew when the health insurance bailout bill was passed it would come back as some stellar example of progressive legislation while the murder of Bin Laden was merely a handy prop to show that O has balls enough to kill. What meaningless drivel.

Until O does something other than escalate his now 5 wars on which he is lavishing the treasury, actually stands for decent health care for all and quits caving to every Republican demand, he deserves to lose. Always remember when voting that the lesser of two evils is still evil.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, June 17, 2011 at 2:25 pm Link to this comment

Ron Paul is not a FOI (friend of Israel) and that alone will have zionists comming out of the woodwork to blather any hypothetical nonsense they can.

He is the best the Republicans have to offer and would offer real solutions to real problems we face in the U.S. today.

If Ron Paul got to the general election as the Republican candidate the democrats would be forced to modify their own neocon stance on many issues just because of Pauls correct view of the problems we face but are unwilling to address.

Report this

By mc.murphy, June 17, 2011 at 1:53 pm Link to this comment

Michael Cavlan RN, June 17 at 9:49 am

“there is another blog which has been gaining in prominence and does NOT expel
voices who are critical of the pro-war, cororate shill Democrats.”

Nonsense. I’ve seen people expelled from FDL, and have been expelled twice
myself.

FDL is a Dem. Party gatekeeper blog with a special kennel on it’s back end acting
as a honey trap.

Report this

By ardee, June 17, 2011 at 1:32 pm Link to this comment

Michael Cavlan RN, June 17 at 9:49 am Link to this comment


Oh and to continue the discussion on an alliance.

I do not consider the SUPPORTERS of Ron Paul to be right wing nut jobs. Many support Ron Paul precisely because he is anti-war, anti-corporatism and pro-Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Is it then your conclusion that ,regardless of the other planks in Paul’s platform, planks he deliberately downplays by the by, it is just peachy to vote for him because of his anti war stance?

Or do you posit that , as Paul’s desire to end all social programs and entitlements, his craving to end all government regulations as well cannot possibly become reality, it is just fine to support him because he is against all wars? His position on war stems from his belief that the USA should become an isolationist nation by the by, opposing war is just an outcome of that belief.

I have delved rather deeply into researching libertarian politics and philosophy and can find no way to support this horrific vision for my nation. I do not believe that ALL supporters of Paul are right wing nut jobs, not by a long shot. Most are simply too lazy to do the work prior to forming an opinion. Single issue voters are a dangerous lot, as is ignorance in general.

Report this

By SoTexGuy, June 17, 2011 at 1:16 pm Link to this comment

‘one of these might defeat Obama’

Wrong.. if Obama loses it’s will be because he defied and betrayed the broad coalition of people who voted him in.. and who very well may not have the stomach to go to polls again for him ... not due to the strength of any Republican challenger.

None of the Republicans show me anything except Ron Paul who is too right for the right wingers..  and me too.

I place no hope that Obama will be kicked out.. first, because all Republican choices so far are stinkers.. second, the Democrats will not put forward any alternative.. they embody ‘party’ politics.

So ask yourself.. if Obama is so odious to the Republicans.. why don’t they field a viable alternative?

Answer.. Obama is their man. He’s everybody’s man. Listen to his speeches since his election. No hope, no change.. Business as usual.

Adios!

Report this
prisnersdilema's avatar

By prisnersdilema, June 17, 2011 at 10:10 am Link to this comment

The man who will defeat Obama in 2012 was not there. Rick Perry, governor of Texas.

As much as I would like it to be Ron Paul I just don’t see it in the cards for him. If
Obama, is to have any hope in Hell of winning re election he better make an about face
and start doing what he was elected to do.

Otherwise Perry will win. Either way, it’s bad news, because if Perry loses in a close
race the south will again leave the union.

I hear south America has some good places to live.

Report this

By Michael Cavlan RN, June 17, 2011 at 9:49 am Link to this comment

Oh and to continue the discussion on an alliance.

I do not consider the SUPPORTERS of Ron Paul to be right wing nut jobs. Many support Ron Paul precisely because he is anti-war, anti-corporatism and pro-Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Unlike the Obama and Democratic Party apologists.

Also, there is another blog which has been gaining in prominence and does NOT expel voices who are critical of the pro-war, cororate shill Democrats. They even publish articles of people who talk of organizing opposition of said president and two party system. Unlike Common Dreams, Op Edd News, Daily KOS, Huffington Post and others.

They are Firedoglake.

The resistance is growing.

Report this

By A. Benway, June 17, 2011 at 9:06 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Barky will probably follow in the pattern of Carter with pop-up strategies creating so-called “blow-back” (all on the clandestine level of course) which will put an even more servile agent in the job. There are numerous indications of this methodology - the hit on OBL meshed with the other many hits in Pak, for starters.

Report this

By Michael Cavlan RN, June 17, 2011 at 7:16 am Link to this comment

Watch your back, Barack? Are you serious?

Meanwhile, the New Progressive Alliance has advertisements on buses in Washington DC that has a picture of Barack Obama with the slogan “He Is A Republican- Primary Him.” As an opening shot.

Perhaps Truthdig could allow stories about the mounting opposition to Obama. Not from the crazy right wing but from the “left” and other supports for the Constitution, Bill of Rights and for the end of the corporate corruption of our “democracy.”

Instead of this fluff.

Just a thought.

Report this

By ardee, June 17, 2011 at 2:40 am Link to this comment

ardee, June 16 at 5:58 pm Link to this comment

mc.murphy, June 16 at 3:37 am

I am truly sorry that you had parents completely disinterested in teaching you manners or socialization skills. To end this “debate” about libertarianism and leave the floor to a churlish lout like you I end with:

Report this

By mc.murphy, June 16, 2011 at 9:26 pm Link to this comment

Conden, June 16 at 9:16 pm

Wow, your lazy, anti intellectual, conservative ignorance and that of several co-travelers of yours, like ardee, shines like a dim bulb.

“Nader: Progressive-libertarian alliance ‘the most exciting new political
dynamic’ in US”  —  http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/13/progressive-
libertarianism-the-exciting-political-dynamic-ralph-nader

“So how will this left-right alliance begin?

Nader suggested that it already has, thanks to the unity of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)
and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the most conservative and most liberal
members of their respective chambers. They’ve teamed up to propose cuts to
the US defense budget, which has long been by far the largest sector of
America’s annual budget, and to push a more thorough audit of the Federal
Reserve, the private central bank which controls America’s currency…”


Ron Paul, Ralph Nader agree on ‘progressive-libertarian alliance’
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/22/ron-paul-ralph-nader-agree-on-
progressive-libertarian-alliance/


“Nader, who has recently called this coalition “the most exciting new political
dynamic” in the US today, explained that it works well because both groups
stand against corporatists who believe government should be run in the
interests of corporations.

“I believe in coalitions,” Rep. Paul echoed. “They talk about we need more
bipartisanship, and I say we have too much bipartisanship because the
bipartisanship we have here in Washington endorses corporatism.”....
——————————————

I’ve voted for Nader when he was running, and wrote in his name whenever he
wasn’t…and I can see what he, Sanders, and Kucinich see; the necessity to
break thy cycle of corporatist/militarist abuse.

http://mosquitocloud.net/

Report this

By Conden, June 16, 2011 at 9:16 pm Link to this comment

We do NOT throw out Ralph Nader, someone who has stood up to corporations throughout his career, when we throw out wrong paul, who wants to privatize everything, eliminate taxes, and setup a corporate dictatorship.  They are not related, and in fact Ralph Nader is the reason why we don’t need any right wing mainstream democrat or republican. As always, I’m going to vote for an independent left/green candidate, and push for electoral reforms that will give us real democracy.

Report this

By mc.murphy, June 16, 2011 at 9:06 pm Link to this comment

Conden, June 16 at 9:00 pm

Ok, so this doesn’t work, that doesn’t work - now what?

Report this

By Conden, June 16, 2011 at 9:00 pm Link to this comment

Obama belongs right there in the republican fold with the rest of these losers.  We already have a republican presidency, with the right wing obama administration that has expanded the wars, corporate power, and advanced austerity.  This scumbag is not worthy of our time, and neither are corporate tea party fascists like wrong paul, despite his legion of internet trolls.

Report this

By mc.murphy, June 16, 2011 at 6:27 pm Link to this comment

ardee, June 16 at 5:58 pm

I made some strategic points for your edification. You, instead choose to mill
around gathering straw and weaving straw men, veiling yourself in faux
indignation.

When you throw out Paul, you also throw out Nader, Kucinich and Sanders.

You’re a nit wit and your appeals to curtesy, while you embrace wholesale
murder and the greatest evil embodied by wars, ring hollow, and are
disgusting.

“What a maroon you are to say a candidates beliefs are irrelevant because he
cannot bring them to fruition.”

So how are such beliefs relevant?  And by relevant I mean material to outcomes?
How are an alchemists beliefs that he/she can create gold and will shower us
with it materially relevant, when all of us know that that’s impossible? Yet why
would I reject such madness if the other side of the offering is ‘peace on earth’,
which that alchemist can actually engender?

Who are you going to vote for, ardee?

You appear as a unprincipled neoliberal fraud and a eunuch; incapable of stepping up to facts
and choosing instead to find succor in the cozy folds of your propaganda cleansed gray matter.

Report this

By mc.murphy, June 16, 2011 at 6:00 pm Link to this comment

DaveZx3, June 16 at 5:12 pm

well that was a long fucking way to say that you have emasculated yourself…

http://mosquitocloud.net/

Report this

By ardee, June 16, 2011 at 5:58 pm Link to this comment

mc.murphy, June 16 at 3:37 am

I am truly sorry that you had parents completely disinterested in teaching you manners or socialization skills. To end this “debate” about libertarianism and leave the floor to a churlish lout like you I end with:

Libertarian politics is a white man’s racism and selfishness disguised as a political system. “I got mine and screw you dark folks” is their mantra. I will not consider a vote for someone who seeks an end to all that I, and others, have noted about the dark side of libertarianism ( funny, that contrast), despite your rather stupidly framed excuse that Paul, not being a dictator, cannot possibly make the changes he so devotedly believes in and works to make real. You just gotta be kidding or perhaps really as stupid as you make yourself out to be.

What a maroon you are to say a candidates beliefs are irrelevant because he cannot bring them to fruition. Now, I leave the floor to you and the other cockroaches. Please perform an anatomically impossible task upon yourself imbecile.

Report this

By Light, June 16, 2011 at 5:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It helped me to understand the global political psychopathology when a retired cop said to me, “All governments are criminal networks, each with its own style.”

Report this

By DaveZx3, June 16, 2011 at 5:12 pm Link to this comment

By John R., June 16 at 10:48 am Link to this comment


“It is not until the streets are full of rioting and looting and suffering will real change begin.”
——————————————————————————-

Forget it.  That is exactly what the elites want—rioting in the steets.  It is why they work so hard to divide the people and whip them into a frenzy over all these artificial crises. 

I believe the globalist power elite, whether you want to call them NWO socialists, international corporatists, illuminati or whatever, think that the best way to assume total power over the whole world is through a series of massive destructive events, whether war, climate, economic, whatever.  And I believe they can control these events and that they do. 

Call it false flag if you want, but a lot of the stuff that is happening has a definite script, and is being played out to facilitate the ultimate goal of world domination by somebody.  It seems obvious to me, anway.

Talking about who the next clown will be to sit in the oval office in 2012 is like discussing Sergeant Schultz and Colonel Klinger as the two pivotal players of the Nazi war effort.

My gut is telling me, “who gives a shit”?  The president of the US is obviously taking orders from someone.  So why should I lose sleep worrying whether Michelle Bachman might win the Republican nomination? Is she worse at taking orders than BHO or Dubya?

How else can you explain a “silver spoon” Skull and Bones, born again, white 2nd, generation Republican corporatist being followed up by a broken family, mixed race, black, Chicago leftist Democrat who pals around with radicals such as Bill Ayers and appoints communists to his cabinet, and they both end up doing virtually the same things? 

Is there some kind of explanation for that?  Did people vote for Obama expecting that he would go to war in Libya and continue so faithfully in Iraq and Afghanistan?  I really don’t get it, unless somebody higher up gives the orders, and the US president just follows them. 

Bush never acted like the conservative they thought he was, and Obama never acted like the progressive they thought he was.  They both acted more like they were taking orders. 

Maybe we should ask to be introduced to the person or persons actually running America and the world, so we can at least know what direction to throw our rocks in.  And we can save the gas we would waste by driving to the polls on election day.

Report this

By CenterOfMass, June 16, 2011 at 2:08 pm Link to this comment

@mackTN: “I don’t understand why the president won’t passionately speak up for progressive values and issues…What can he do when he is surrounded by Wall Streeters in his cabinet?”

I think you just answered the implicit question.  Obama is not really progressive.  He’s not really working for his voters.  He’s working for Wall Street.

He’s the banks’ guy, and seemingly always has been.

Report this

By mc.murphy, June 16, 2011 at 11:55 am Link to this comment

Dennis in MI, June 16 at 8:03

Please, you are not helping when you embrace the libertarian capitalist tendency
of Ron Paul as material. A President, is still, as yet, not a Monarch in American. He
cannot decree a change or end to anything without ‘consultation’ with Congress
(they pass the laws of the land), but as the Commander in Chief he can unilaterally
end our militarist empire!

http://mosquitocloud.net/

Report this

By mc.murphy, June 16, 2011 at 11:46 am Link to this comment

Big B, June 16 at 6:04 am

‘How about’ is neither a plan nor a strategy. A laundry list of wishes won’t make it
so, which leaves you holding an empty bag.

Revolution, ballot box or both. Those are the options.

Where it comes to the ballot box, who is your magical candidate? Because right
now your laundry list is getting demolished.

You’re fully unserious, Big B

Report this

By bostongeorge, June 16, 2011 at 11:24 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Of course the inconvenient truth is that Mitt made his fortune by financial manipulation and firing vast amounts of people.

Could we possibly have a candidate that was interested, at all, in the welfare of the other 98% of the American people?

And of course the other republicans are corrupt insane and revel in doing evil.  Dems are mostly just corrupt and also uninterested in the other 98% of the American people.

All this goes to prove that democracy is not a viable option.  It would work a lot better if votes were not counted from anyone who believes Obama is a socialist or anyone who is against abortion, birth control or gay (whatever).

The easy times for the human race are at a finish, policy should not be determined by people who are “nuts”.  So it’s down to the totally criminal US govt.

Report this
John R.'s avatar

By John R., June 16, 2011 at 10:48 am Link to this comment

Ron Paul may as well not even exist. As we shall all see the media owned
corporations will make him disappear.

First it will be slander from the media - as if he wasn’t a real candidate.

Then he will no longer be invited to debate. End of Ron Paul.

Then we will be left again with the confidence men/women. Addressing
anything but - the real issues of the poor, lower, and middle classes.

China will default the United States.

The dollar will plummet.

It is not until the streets are full of rioting and looting and suffering will real
change begin.

And this real change may be much worse than what is happening now.

Report this

By MeHere, June 16, 2011 at 10:34 am Link to this comment

During the last presidential campaign, many of the same liberal folks that
ended up voting for Obama used to say: “I also like Ron Paul….” but they
couldn’t finish the sentence.  Now that they feel that delusion #1 has failed,
maybe they’d like to try delusion #2 ?  It wouldn’t be too surprising. Before Ron
Paul can talk about ending wars he has to explain how he plans to deal with the
underlying internal forces that push the US into frequent hostile interventions abroad.

As usual, all these debates are and promise to be about nothing real
and constructive. They are little more than reality shows, as defined in Wikipedia:

“Reality television is a genre of television programming that presents
purportedly unscripted dramatic or humorous situations, documents actual
events, and usually features ordinary people instead of professional actors,
sometimes in a contest or other situation where a prize is awarded.”

Report this
mackTN's avatar

By mackTN, June 16, 2011 at 9:22 am Link to this comment

“The president is given to moments of admirable gutsiness—Osama bin Laden,
the health care law—followed by long periods of aimlessness and silence. There
are also pointless meetings behind closed doors on the war, the deficit and the
economy.”


I don’t understand why the president won’t passionately speak up for
progressive values and issues.  It’s like his strategy is to be re-elected in the
most passive way possible, by letting his voters get scared enough of
Republicans to drive them in the polls to vote against them, not for him. 

Perhaps he really doesn’t want to be re-elected and is only running out of a
sense of obligation.  His surrogates seem to be doing heavier lifting than he is.

What can he do when he is surrounded by Wall Streeters in his cabinet?  I just
don’t get this.  To be honest, I feel that the country was sold a long time ago
and it is being dismantled in the midst of corporate rule.

Report this

By phreedom, June 16, 2011 at 9:05 am Link to this comment

Thank you Bill,

Very scary stuff.,,,,  Hey,, here is an idea for
President Obama, to both stimulate the economy
immensely and to take a step back to the left, a
direction that got him where he is today, but he
choose to sidestep so lawfully. A means to knock
these republican opportunist off balance. Well,
reverse the intentions and material impact of the
“Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection
Act of 2005, law S. 256 ”. (which on April 20, 2005,
President Bush signed into law, a pack of laws
lobbied for and written by the banks)

And especially as it pertains to student loan debt,
or specifically
• S. 256 § 220; student loans
Section 523(a)(8) is amended to make student loans
nondis-chargeable, in the absence of undue hardship,
regardless of the nature of the lender, thus covering
loans from non-governmental
and profit-making organizations.

Though if one reads the greater body of this so
called reform act, one will see it was another
Orwellian play on words, and was anticipating some
kind of financial meltdown. So the whole thing should
be trashed.

I am very surprised that no one has looked at this so
called bankruptcy reform, as some indication that
those in the Bush administration had some inkling
that the balloon was going to poop, eventually, and
this would soften the blow of the mortgage debacle,
by mitigated a double whammy in a student loan
catastrophe. Essentially this law was a safeguard to
yet another bubble crisis that was looming and
running in unison will the ill fated financial
meltdown,, caused by div-y-ing up mortgages into
eternal financial bliss for the banks and brokerage
houses.

Well, getting back to the gist of my comment, lets
say there are 100 billion in student loan debt
outstanding, currently, all of which is non-
dischargeable in bankruptcy, despite any normal human
circumstance of difficulty, well, by kicking out
Section 523(a)(8) of the current bankruptcy code, by
reasonably defining hardship, which I think we can
agree on, is definable in this day and age, well, an
injustice in terms of bias laws will be overturned,
and many smart Americans will have some debt burden
lifted from their shoulders. This would create an
immediate infusion of cash into the economy, by
virtue of less being sent into the abyss of student
loans, that in many cases can never be paid off,,,
loans that furthermore disallow many productive
people to become un-paralyzed with debt that is kept
in place, despite the inability to pay it,, and debt
that is forbidden to go the way of the financial
bubble they represent and were devised in.

Someone needs to use Rule 5.1.  Constitutional
Challenge to a Statute —
Notice, Certification, and Intervention, of the civil
rules of procedure, within a bankruptcy proceeding,
containing student loans,,and at least have the law
define “hardship”, if not make student loans of all
originations, and in any stage of consolidation or
refinancing again, well dischargeable,, as is
reasonable and prudent under the present economic
state of affairs of this country.

Start with a filing like this;

A constitutional challenge of 11 u.s.c. §  523  (a)
(8) as provided for under rule 9014 guiding contested
matters. …......this motion relegates the issue of
the nondischareability of any student loan creditor,
past and present claim to the issue of a debt made
permanent by an act of congress which discriminates
against all other debt and makes this debt/claim
unlawful, and inappropriately violates and distorts
congresses’ responsibility and mandate/right to enact
bankruptcy law that is uniformed

Rhuen Phreed, 231 Park Drive, #40, Boston MA

Report this

By Gmonst, June 16, 2011 at 8:53 am Link to this comment

The thing about Ron Paul is he is a serious guy.  He is not just another puffed up, shiny, smiling face watching polls and trying to be the carefully molded perfect candidate of the moment.  I believe he is real and truly believes the views he espouses.  I deeply disagree with him on some things, but still find a lot of common ground with his views.  If he was the Republican candidate the effect he would have on the discussion and debate would be awesome.  I for one would be very happy to see Ron Paul as the Republican candidate.  I don’t care if I disagree with him on some or even a lot of things.  I would rather a serious and real candidate of libertarian views than another smooth-faced lying snake-oil salesperson.  A candidate like Paul can only raise the level of ideas and debate.

Report this

By MR, June 16, 2011 at 8:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

People said Obama didnt have a chance against Clinton and yet he beat her soundly by organizing and preparing better.

How can you seriously think any of these fools at the debate will beat him nationwide?

Explain why he has near 50% job approval right now even in this lousy economy?
The reason is people realize he is not all to blame for the economy. We are in the same hole that Bush dug and the Republican house just keeps digging more.

The whack-a-mole lineup of Republicans all are handcuffed by the extreme positions and issues their base voters want.
It will be childs play for Obama’s campaign to show how destructive they will be for this country when the majority of people dont agree with their extremist views.

Watch your back, Barack? Whatever.
Any Republicans with a real credible chance at the presidency are wisely waiting till 2016.

Report this

By Dennis in MI, June 16, 2011 at 8:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ron Pauls not only about ending the Wars. He is also about ending the Fed and ending the Patriot Act and ending the Drug War. Name 4 more important issues to the people. Can’t do it.
His opposition to SS is real but he acknowledges that it is set in stone. He would offer an opt out but would not end SS. The one thing that most concerns me with libertarian idealogy is the ability to regulate the corporations. If that isn’t a job for government, what is? On the other hand, how in hell do we allow fracking, flouride, mercury, coal ash, GMO’s, BPA, depleted uranium, white phosphorous, chem trails, alumininum,etc., with Federal regulation??

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, June 16, 2011 at 7:32 am Link to this comment

To me, nothing is more important that ending the wars, ending the military-industrial complex, and ending this country’s interventionist/imperialist foreign policy. Do all that, and the economy ought to improve; as Sun Tzu said, “There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefitted.”

You can imagine which Repub I’ll vote for ...

Report this

By Big B, June 16, 2011 at 6:04 am Link to this comment

I am glad you asked Mr Murphy.

How about taxing ALL income for social security (not just the first $106,000? How about donig the same for medicare, then eliminate co-pays, cover all medications, and set the coverage age at 0?

How about a value added tax on all goods formerly made in the USA, but now produced at a fraction of the cost in a banana republic and then shipped back here to be sold at the same price as before? (or higher) And of course repealing the REAGAN tax cuts.

Either re-institute pro-union laws, or raise the federal minimum wage to $14 an hour.

Each state needs to open its own bank.

The pentagon budget needs cut by 80% (at least)

These few measures alone will re-empower american workers, invigorate american businesses (imagine owning a business and not having to deal with health insurance and retirement costs) and perhaps keep us from becoming a banana repubilc ourselves.

As for the leprachauns. Well, they and santa and the easter bunny will still be polishing their Ronny Ray-guns statue and hoping beyond hope that Supply side economics and “free markets” will bring prosperity to all. Talk about fucking magic.

Report this

By Bill, June 16, 2011 at 5:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Saying BO is crippled by two wars and greater than 9% unemployment seems to infer he is a victim of those too huge debilitating problems.

There are increasing numbers of voters, myself included, that believe his policies and the people he selects as his cronies are quite active players causing these problems.

Report this

By mc.murphy, June 16, 2011 at 5:03 am Link to this comment

Big B, June 16 at 4:56 am

HOW?— Leprechauns? Magical thinking?

You’re a cut out and sound like one, Big B.

http://mosquitocloud.net/

Report this
thecrow's avatar

By thecrow, June 16, 2011 at 5:02 am Link to this comment

“a president crippled by hopeless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan”

caw caw caw

“Sounding presidential, Senator Barack Obama said Wednesday he would order a surge of U.S. troops – perhaps 15,000 or more – to Afghanistan as soon as he reached the White House.

‘The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large and plotting,’ he said, echoing Mr. Bush’s oft-repeated refrain.”

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/the-ones-who-attacked-us/

Report this

By Big B, June 16, 2011 at 4:56 am Link to this comment

Yes, libertarians like Paul are all for ending our “foreign entanglements”, but just imagine their dream of a completely deregulated marketplace. And the elimination of any and all income taxes.

Libertarians want to see america go back to the 50’s, the 1850’s! As for the rest of you angry Paul supporters, just because someone critisizes Ron Paul does not make them “pro-establishment”. We just think we can do alot better than the pro-business, anti public spending libertarians.

Imagine an america without social security, medicare, public education? Or big businesses operating without any legal or moral oversite? There is a reason that corporations were regulated by the people through the EPA, the dept of labor, the SEC, the dept of interior, ect. ITS BECAUSE THEY DID BAD THINGS. They are already doing bad things again, imagine if all roadblcks were removed? That would be Ron Paul’s america.

Only truly liberal ideas can get us out of this morass (that’s liberal, not democratic)

Report this
Mike789's avatar

By Mike789, June 16, 2011 at 4:41 am Link to this comment

” graduates of elite universities,” in other words the clones who played the game correctly for their cookie-cut, Cum Laude parchments, who having never stumbled in the real world, have never overcome real adversity and will continue to play circle jerk with one another to perpetuate their hegonomy which has repeatedly painted our country into a corner. None of them will risk anything outside the box of the mainstream security blanket. All of their gains were made on the backs of they would had felt a grip in the gut that burned through to the brain and survived. The elite resent that resiliency and want to crush anyone who reminds them of the moral and ethical vacuum they’ve perpetuated.

And though I’d hate to admit it, Obama is just another preppy without a clue as to what it means to take a stand and say “no”.

[No more tax breaks. That’s right you won’t have as much money if you are taxed more and just sit on your rump. In other words you’ll have to step up to the plate like the rest of us struggling in the economic debacle that you refused to acknowledge for the sham that it was and still is when there was a chance to countervail it. Adversity is selling cheap these days, get a wheelbarrow full.]

Praise to those who have succeeded in overcoming these deficiencies. Too bad no one will listen to you.

Report this

By surfnow, June 16, 2011 at 4:28 am Link to this comment

It won’t take much of a candidate to beat O in ‘12. I’ve been saying that since he was sworn in- that he’d be a one-termer. The Republicans sacrificed McCain in ‘08- they knew how much Bush had decimated the economy and that Obama would have defeated anyone they put up. They had always had their eye on ‘12. But Obama did absolutely nothing to help his own case , and at this point he has no one to blame but himself when he loses.

Report this

By Sofianitz, June 16, 2011 at 4:24 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I watched a portion of the debate.

The possibility that any one of these horribly damaged pathetic human beings could become the President of the United States gave me pause.

Time for realizing that we are no longer living in a democracy, and to begin our plans for a patriotic uprising.

Report this

By JJW, June 16, 2011 at 4:02 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Obama is just a third term of the worst President in US history, Bush.  We should package the two up along with Cheney and send them to the Hague for trial.

“The debates” have been a waste of time ever since the two parties took them away from the League of Women Voters.  Unfortunately today, journalists are too lazy to report on the real resumes and actual record, instead of acting as though we are having a congeniality contest in grade school.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, June 16, 2011 at 3:39 am Link to this comment

Booga Booga, Ron Paul will end free lunches…...what a laugh.  Enough already of the fear peddling to predict what the anti-Paul detractors don’t know or have no clue about how his government would affect us all.

Ron Paul wishes to return control to the states as indicated in the 10th amendment. He will cut the military and bring home the troops and close overseas bases which will make those countries citizens happy.

Most importantly, he will end the sideshow Israel continually put the US through and quit giving away US tax dollars in foreign aid.

Unfortunately, like last election the media will make Ron Paul virtually disappear as they are owned by the self same corporations who risk much to lose if he is elected.  He scares the hell out of them.

Report this

By mc.murphy, June 16, 2011 at 3:37 am Link to this comment

ardee, June 16 at 2:39 am

“...as well as those who tout Paul’s candidacy. If you are in favor of an end to all
entitlement programs , if you favor an end to any and all regulatory powers of
government then by all means continue to support Ron Paul”

Use your head ardee, don’t be a drawstring pupet for the establishment
propaganda, eh?!

If as you claim a President could end all programs, then it would also follow
that a President could create new ones. So why are we up shits creek, then?

And since when do we have a Monarchy where Ron Paul could rule by decree?!

The only thing Ron Paul could unilaterally decree is an an end to Wars!!!! The
rest of the shit you throw up is parched shit that just won’t stick!

http://mosquitocloud.net/

Report this

By ardee, June 16, 2011 at 2:39 am Link to this comment

for mc.murphy, June 16 at 12:00 am

...as well as those who tout Paul’s candidacy. If you are in favor of an end to all entitlement programs , if you favor an end to any and all regulatory powers of government then by all means continue to support Ron Paul. The single issue that seems to appeal to “liberals” is his position on war, and that stems from his position that we should be an isolationist nation completely.

Those who trumpet Ron Paul’s candidacy fall, I believe, into two categories; those who know nothing about Libertarian political views and react only to an antiwar stance, and those who attempt to drum up support for him by intentionally avoiding the terrible ideas and ideals he stands for.

Report this

By Justa, June 16, 2011 at 1:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

All too true Kerry. The “what if” theory is stupid in my opinion as well. The only thin that the republicans might do is accelerate the process that is already happening.

Report this

By mc.murphy, June 16, 2011 at 12:00 am Link to this comment

“But as bad as this lineup is, whoever gets the nomination will have the
advantage of running against a president crippled by hopeless wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and by 9.1 percent unemployment.”

You omitted Ron Paul who won all polls except for some trumped up piece of
shit O’Reily pulled out of his arse.

You should applaud him if you really care about ending wars, which are not a
political football, as you and rest of the progressive liberal shills would like to
again turn it into.

Unemployment @ 9.1, in your dreams Boyarsky. You can double that and add
some points on the back end because your Party’s collusion with Wall Street is
killing the American job market, and the economy is still sliding into the ditch.

Your fucking problem is that you are an establishment hack, and the American
public is waking up to the meaning of that reality. It’s establishment v. the
people and you are on the wrong side!

http://mosquitocloud.net/

Report this
kerryrose's avatar

By kerryrose, June 15, 2011 at 11:55 pm Link to this comment

Obama is not ‘crippled’ by war.  He created and extended the wars.  If ‘high unemployment and foreclosures’ are true and ‘Obama seems like one of them most of the time’  perhaps he deserves to lose.

What will happen if Obama loses?  Unions be crippled?  Already happening.  Civil rights infringed upon?  Already happening.  More war?  Already happening.  Privatization of education?  Already happening?  End of funding to public services?  Already happening.

Who cares if he loses?  What have we got to gain if he stays?

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook