“The truly undecided voter is rare, say those who study the psychology of voting,” Joe Garofoli wrote in The San Francisco Chronicle. “Since neuroscientists say 90 percent of thought is unconscious, an undecided voter may have already decided–he just hasn’t revealed his pick to himself yet.”
Whether I’m a rare bird or a typical victim of self-denial, I didn’t know how I was going to vote until election day–or, to be more precise, a election minute. Roughly 15 to 20 percent of 2008 primary voters have had similar trouble getting their unconscious to talk to them.
Most of the electoral procrastinators are conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats–party loyalists whose influence has been diluted by independents who vote in their primaries. As has been widely discussed, conservatives were unhappy with the entire field of Republican presidential contenders. Less noted but no less significant has been the effect of John Edwards’ departure from the Democratic field.
Lefties don’t have a candidate.
Like most hardcore liberals, I had planned to vote for Edwards. I’m a registered Democrat. I live in New York, a “closed primary” state. That left Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
I studied the printed grid inside my mechanical voting machine, a steel beast from the 1950s. New York keeps threatening to replace the classic booths. I hope they keep them forever. Old-school machines have a feature I treasure: you flip a switch to make an “X” appear next to your choice. You’re not committed until you pull the lever to open the curtain; you can flip the switch back and go with someone else instead.
I moved the switch to Hillary, to see how it looked. Hillary. Ted Rall votes for Hillary. I asked myself my usual test question: If she won, and I watched her being sworn in next January, how would I feel?
Bored. And slightly depressed.
I thought about the experience issue, her biggest advantage. “I am offering 35 years of experience making change,” she says. Though way overstated–35 years of what? being a lawyer?–living in the White House has to have left her with some insights. Unlike Obama, Hillary wouldn’t lose her way searching for the restroom. But political dynasties suck. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton would be a sad statement. A nation of 300 million people shouldn’t keep turning to the same few families for leadership.
A woman president is a couple of centuries overdue. But issues matter more than affirmative action. I couldn’t overlook Clinton’s votes to go to war and to waste hundreds of billions of dollars on the never-ending horror show of Iraq. Thousands of people are dead because of her.
Hillary Clinton didn’t think Iraq had WMDs. No one smart did. The polls were running for the war, and so was she. She pandered. It was disgusting. But I was even more appalled by her lousy political skills. It ought to have been evident, even then, that (a) the war wouldn’t go well, (b) Americans would turn against it, and (c) this would occur before she was up for reelection in 2006. It was obvious to even me at the time, and it took me ten years to get a bachelor’s degree.
She was wrong. She had bad judgment. And her September 2007 vote for possible war against Iran proves she still does. I moved the lever left. The “X” disappeared from Clinton’s box.
I made an “X” pop up next to Obama’s name. “I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of…” I wasn’t feeling it.
For what will soon have been eight long years, I reflected, left-of-center Americans have endured an illegitimate administration of morons, thieves and bullies. “[The press secretary’s] job is to help explain my decisions to the American people,” Bush once said, describing how he interacts with people who disagree with him. Bush stacked the Supreme Court by appointing right-wing extremists to replace moderates. Compromise was an alien concept to the Bushies. They did whatever they wanted–wars, torture, tax cuts for the superrich, tapping political dissidents’ phones–and Democrats did nothing to stop them, even after they regained control of both houses of Congress.
After 9/11 Republicans repeatedly screamed that liberals were pro-Islamist, anti-American traitors. Right-wing opinion mongers–Ann Coulter, Andrew Sullivan, James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal, William Kristol of The Weekly Standard (and now The New York Times) accused me of treason. (Hey, I’m not the one trying to get rid of the Bill of Rights.)
Former GOP presidential candidate Alan Keyes suggested that I be imprisoned or shot. And “mainstream” Republicans indicated their tacit agreement with cricket-chirping silence. Not once did a Republican Congressman demand that their neo-McCarthyite allies apologize for their statements. Not once did a Republican opinion columnist take issue with equating the Democratic Party with anti-Americanism. Not once. Compare that to the Democratic practice of “Sister Souljah-ing” lefties who annoy the conservative hyenas.
“I want the Republicans to feel the way I did in 2004,” an Iowa Democrat told The New York Times. So do I. I want them to watch everything they care about disassembled. Take Reagan and Bush’s names off the airports, nationalize major corporations, demolish Gitmo, gay marriage–anything that pisses them off.
I want revenge. Obama preaches reconciliation. “I will create a working majority because I won’t demonize my opponents,” says Obama. The Illinois senator is an interesting politician and might make a good leader. But not yet. Give me eight years of Democratic rule as ruthless and extreme and uncompromising as the last eight years of Bush. Then we can have some bipartisanship.
Obama’s let’s-tiptoe-through-the-tulips-with-the-GOP shtick amounts to bargaining with yourself. If a vendor at a flea market offers to sell you a lamp for $10 and you’re willing to pay $8, you don’t offer $8. Demonize, Barack, demonize!
Oh, and Obama says he wouldn’t have voted for the Iraq War. I say he’s lying. So do his votes for funding the war since he joined the Senate. His voting record on Iraq is the same as Hillary’s.
Hillary, no. Obama? Nobama. What to do?
“Hundreds of thousands of Democrats and independents who were motivated enough to go and vote on February 5 did so for Edwards, knowing full well that he was out of the running,” reports The Nation. I was one of them.
Ted Rall is the author of the book “Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?,” an in-depth prose and graphic novel analysis of America’s next big foreign policy challenge.
© 2008 uclick, LLC
Democrats don’t do ruthless and extreme and uncompromising. They do compassion and forgiveness and turn-the-other-cheek and please, sir, may I have another? That’s partly what makes them democrats. They are the battered woman of political parties. Want tough? Want to help your friends and hurt your enemies? Better pick the R party.
Ted, I feel your pain and agree with you in large part. However, as much as I too would like a strong democratic reign just as you describe, this is ridiculous fantasy given how the Dems sold us out after the 2006 election. With the excellent chance of the Dems controlling the White House and both houses of Congress in 11 months, they are rushing to clean up the torture issues and wiretapping issues for Bush.
Why don’t they make him use his veto pen, and freeze him out knowing that they can go after Bush & his fellow criminals in short measure? Because Pelosi, Reid and Emanuel are corporate dems that are worthless to the party at large, political cowards and enablers of Bush.
Obama may be able to get Republicans or at least the respectable ones back to where they were at the time of Watergate, willing to stand up for their country first against a criminal who was nothing more than baggage. Remember, it was the Republicans, not the Dems or the press that finally slew Tricky Dick. This too is optimistic but more realistic than hoping that the Dems get spines, brains, or morals.
I voted in NYC on those great old lever machines. I mourned over the John Edwards lever — and then pushed down the Obama lever. It was a vote for hope and the future and not more years of Clintonism. I’m hoping for a positive change even as I cringe at some of Obama’s less progressive stands. He is NOT the most liberal in the Senate, despite what the rightist rags say. But perhaps we can push him more liberal. Let Obama live up to his words of peace and populist change. Finally, he inspires the youth. Hillary Clinton doesn’t do that. McCain won’t do that. So Obama it is. I hope.
I don’t know what left and right mean any more, but progressives can vote Green Party or Nader.
Let the Republicrats country to the ground, then maybe we’ll get some real options on the presidential ballot one of these cycles.
Revenge may be sweet to contemplate but it’s a bitter pill to swallow and does not contribute to resolution of wrongdoing. Obama has the right of it, and there are appalled Republicans out there who have been forced into silence by the Gestapo tactics of this administration. I agree with Obama that we have to end the divisiveness that has driven the national discourse and is running this country off a cliff. Young people deserve and want better than this. That is why his message is energizing and inspiring them to come out in force. They had good reason for staying out of politics, it’s like watching their parents fight and bicker while the house gets filthy and the refrigerator is empty. Why should they join that?
kathyodat
I’m not enough of a wishful thinker to believe that Obama can hang a U turn but I believe he can persuade people to start turning this Titanic and maybe we won’t hit the iceberg head on after all. And if we do I’d rather have him at the helm than anyone else out there. If we’re in trouble I don’t trust anyone else’s priorities about who needs to be saved. We’ve been headed for disaster at full speed ever since Reagan was elected, and that includes Bill Clinton’s participation in corporate giveaways and deregulation.
kucinich was still on the ballot when my primary was held, and i pushed the button for him with a mix of smug satisfaction and smoldering rage.
If Obama wins the General Election, and brings John Edwards into his administration in some powerful position, perhaps everyone here will feel a little better - I know I will.
BeForKids;
Actually, had the Titanic hit the iceburg dead on it likely would have been able to make port. It was the attempt to turn that led to its sinking.
But the main point is that you and the other posters are right, taking out their eyes after yours were removed will leave the whole of the usa blind; well more blind than you are now… (grin, lame attempt at humour)
The only creature that should be blind is the mythical one of justice. Charge bush et al after they leave office if needs must (if you can’t arrest them before their terms expire) and let the investigation take what course it will. Hopefully something good will come of all this in the end.
I have conquered them all, but I am standing among graves…
Agreed BeForKids when you said “We’ve been headed for disaster at full speed ever since Reagan was elected, and that includes Bill Clinton’s participation in corporate giveaways and deregulation”
and you may add, his support of free trade agreements under rules that favor big corporations.
My vote against Hillary in April 22 will be my retribution for the role her husband played in the hollowing of the American economy, and for her cowardly vote to enable Cheney et al in their criminal adventures in the Middle East.
I strongly suspect that Obama is no better. Right now I’d say I am 90% to 95% sure that he is no better. But in the case of Hillary, I am 100% sure that she does not represent my interests one bit (regardless of what she may be promising in the campaign trail).
So in the Democratic primary here in Pennsylvania I will be voting lesser-of-two-evils. To me that’s clearly Obama.
In November I will likely vote for some 3rd party candidate. (If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination then I will DEFINITELY vote for a 3rd party candidate).
Mr. Rall, the final two lines of “An Eye For An Eye” from the original Kung Fu come to mind with your defeatist screed:
“If I don’t have a right to revenge, then who does?”
“No one.”
Yes, the W regime has done plenty of horrible things that will scar the American soul for decades (provided we and, by extension, the human race last that long). Of course, they should be held more accountable for their crimes than they have been. But this? “Give me eight years of Democratic rule as ruthless and extreme and uncompromising as the last eight years of Bush. Then we can have some bipartisanship.” All that tells me is you’ve only learned how to become the very enemy you loathe. If you want to put another scar on this nation’s soul, be my guest. But don’t expect me to cheer you on. You don’t rebuild a nation by blowing up whatever bridges are left between its people.
To me, you sound like a man not unlike myself in that you want a better world than the one you have. But, unlike me, you’ve given up, rolled over, stuck a fork in it and said that you’re done. If that is indeed the case, then you have the world that you both want and deserve. If all you want to do is repeat the old pattern, how do you expect anything to TRULY change, including yourself?
Wow Ted, I can’t believe I did exactly the same thing as you, but on a computer screen. My state has an open primary, I am a registered Green, but no Green primary this year, I went to the polls anyway. I was given the choice to vote for Repugs or Dims, I actually had to think about this for about 5 seconds, I could vote for Ron Paul just to irritate the Repugs, na, why bother, they are irritated enough as it is, I mean look at their choices.
What the heck, I chose to vote in the Dim primary. I had already decided that John Edwards was my pick, by a process that is entirely to convoluted to try to explain. But in the booth, I went through the same process Ted described, and encouraged by an earlier CD article, http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/05/6860/ , I pushed the button for Edwards.
After the fact I have been second guessing my choice. I want to feel validated by Ted’s article, but I can’t decide if thinking like Ted Rall is something I can find value in, oh well perhaps I can feel validated about my choice without having to identify with Ted.
cicero,
That’s the thing. While I give Obama higher marks than you do, I am 100% sure that Hillary actually works against my best interests.
“I want revenge.”
Oh. Hell. Yes.
Over-the-counter home stem cell kits. Legalize cannabis and free all non-violent “drug war” prisoners. Cancel everything and anything Halliburton/Blackwater/Bectel related. Abolish the Office of Faith Based Initiatives on Inauguration Day.
And, as TR said, gay anything!
Reading through these posts, one is struck by the rising current of liberals desperately searching for one or another rationalization to once again swallow what’s offered up the by Democratic Party, now mainly in the form of Obama.
Some are arguing for Obama simply on the grounds that he’s a Democrat, claiming this must be regarded as “better than any Republican” (needless to say — according to these people — that’s the whole universe of possibilities). Some have convinced themselves that Obama is “secretly” very progressive, but that he’s just playing ball with the corporatists until he gets elected — then ‘Presto!’ — he’ll remove his centrist mask, and start being the next FDR. Some are arguing that it doesn’t really matter what Obama himself is — the only thing that matters is that he’s inspiring the young, and bringing a new fresh “optimism” to politics.
People who vote for Democrats have little appreciation for the lessons of history, & don’t want to be bothered with it. What they are far more interested in, is simply finding a way to conform to the present system, which also lets them feel OK about themselves.
It’s to those people that I address the following special offer: a one-paragraph condensation of a great deal of history. (It’s far easier to read this one paragraph, than to read many volumes of historical analysis — which most of you rationalizers are too lazy to read, anyway.) So here you go:
The main function of the Democratic Party, in times of rising social discontent, is channeling the discontent and keeping it within the safe confines of Democratic Party politics. The function of the DP is not to alter any of the conditions which produced the discontent, but simply to make sympathetic-sounding appeals to those who suffer from it. Once you give into this, and put the DP back in power, nothing about the corporatist-controlled structure which produced the discontent in the first place is addressed or altered in any way. This is why the system never changes. The DP is its “last line of defense.”
“Obama preaches reconciliation.”
Screw that! Who wants to reconcile with war criminals.
Didn’t Grover Norquist say?, “bipartisanship is just another name for date rape.”
I’ll be damned if I’d want to reconcile with my rapist. These warmongerers in Washington must be fought, resisted, and overcome. Preaching reconciliation, Obama is just sweet talking us as he helps the upper class ream us out some more. At least Edwards had a sliver of decency to say he made a mistake.
I missed my primary. I would have voted for Mike Gravel. I found out the next day Gravel wasn’t even on the ballot.
My state’s primary is approaching and I will probably vote for Obama, hoping somehow, in some way, that events and popular will can pull Obama into progressive positions. I just cannot think of any legal viable alternatives to supporting Obama. I cannot say there are no alternatives, but only that I think choosing such alternatives could lead to prosecution by the authorities, and, as a father and husband, I am not ready to go there yet.
“Like most hardcore liberals, I had planned to vote for Edwards.” Sorry, Mr. Rall, but most hardcore liberals wanted Kucinich (or Gravel or the Green Party), and not Edwards. It’s the softcore liberals that wanted Edwards.
Obama is doing what he has to do to get elected. If he did what we all want him to do, he wouldn’t stand a chance, just like Kucinich didn’t.
I don’t want revenge. All I want is success, success in getting the warmongers out of office and making changes for the better. If Mr. Rall really wanted revenge he would have written article after article urging people to vote for Kucinich, instead of this one, bemoaning the fact that Edwards is out of the race. And he would have urged his colleagues in the left-wing political writer’s club to do the same. That is if he were really a hardcore liberal.
RichM -
Your post is spot on! I wish I would have had the ability to vote in a Green party primary, but not an option. As I said I am a registered Green, because I believe in the platform, but as we all know third parties are totally marginalized by the system.
I have no faith in the Democrats as an alternative, they are like Siamese twins with the Repugs, corporate shills the lot of ‘em.
So I gotta ask. Do you advocate a solution to the problem you described so well?
FZ____Great idea and I agree completely. It is not a matter of revenge, which is not proper, but we should elect a slate of people that will show the Repugs that we will not stand for the destruction of our country any longer. Whatever it takes to turn the country around and make it work again for all of us is the thing to do. After that is accomplished, then talk of Obama`s getting along and bringing everyone together would make more sense. Hillary–2008 Obama–2012
I too have often wondered how come there has never been an apology. I have had to unlearn everything that I ever learned growing up as an American. I was forced to believe that sharing is unnecessary and even bad. Lying is good if it lets you win the game. And if you find that you have just been relieved of your role as a glutonous political pig that you in no way owe an apology to those whose shoes you shit on and legs you ultimately tried to fuck in your dementia.
Republicans, the Christians that they are, can’t seem to come to the conclusion that they have been inside of a whirlwind of blood and oil lust in the name of Jesus and The American Way. I put up with their accusations of disloyalty as well and now where are these people? They all sort of woke up along the way, I guess. Perhaps having “come to their senses,” shouldn’t they at least apologize for being the ignoramuses that they are for falling for the obvious lies of these modern American monsters of the Bush clan? Perhaps they should apologize for the fact that they don’t even know how to read, for having totally uncurious minds. I won’t hold my breath. The myth of the all-righteous American is too great for us fatties to put down our hamburgers and stop the elected thieves from murdering those in their way in the name of their true god: money.
I’m Canadian so I don’t have to make the gut wrenching decision (but it’s no easier here to decide who to vote for). I agree that Obama is not Kucinich, who would be my choice. Nor is Obama enough of a socialist for me.
But since the choice is Obama or Hillary, I would pick him. He isn’t as entrenched in the ugly system, he knows that there is a world outside of the US, and he incites hope & excitement in ordinary people without using nationalism or greed or war mongering to do so.
Of the 3 current front runners, he would be my choice.
You’re more than welcome to take Obama up to Canada, if you like. I certainly have no use for him. I’m with RichM.
This is silly, Ted. Did you really hold out hope that our electoral system would offer salvation? In this go around, like all of those before it, we aren’t voting for a leader. We are choosing our enemy’s leader.
So the question is: which of these jerks will be the least competent defender of corporate power and imperial ambitions? Who will be our Louis XVI?
I fear Clinton more than Obama.
Just pull the lever like a good doggie and everything will be all right.
One more time: electoral politics is a farce if you vote for a candidate whose interests and positions are opposed to yours.
Corporate thralls who fund the war in Iraq and who support the institutions of economic globalization are against what I want to see. Therefore, none of them get my vote.
Geez, some people are so suggestible that they’ll reconceive of the candidate who eats the fewest kittens as the one closest to progressivism. Think, people!
seriousprofessor”
“One more time: electoral politics is a farce if you vote for a candidate whose interests and positions are opposed to yours.”
If all of the candidates look the same, it’s a farce. That doesn’t change when you withhold your vote. Our system gives us the opportunity to play a limited role in choosing the next CEO of America, Inc. It ain’t much, but it’s cheap and easy to tic a box and then immediately switch focus to working in more productive ways.
The end of the Clinton administration saw a vibrant left knock back global capitalism by a couple of years in Seattle and Cancun. No American at that time could argue, “Gee, if we only had a Democrat in the White House . . .” So why not pull a lever for Obama? Let him be the schmuck who lets the liberals down. Lets puncture their silly excuses and maybe we can get back to work instead of agonizing over the dog and pony show.
myboysherman (7:13) writes, “So why not pull a lever for Obama? Let him be the schmuck who lets the liberals down. Let’s puncture their silly excuses and maybe we can get back to work instead of agonizing over the dog and pony show…”
- That’s not what will happen when Obama lets the liberals down. What will happen is that by then, the Republicans will be ready to take control again.
The reason to not “pull a lever for Obama” is that by voting for Democrats, you are submitting to (and thereby tacitly strengthening) the 2-party system. You’ll notice that the 2-party system is not symmetrical. When Republicans are in office, they call the shots. But when Democrats are nominally in office (as in the Clinton admin, or the Pelosi-Reid Congress), it’s still Republicans that call the shots. In other words, no matter who’s in office, Republicans call the shots. You never see Democrats reversing what Republicans have done. But Republicans reverse anything they want to — even the entire New Deal, or the Bill of Rights — and Democrats don’t lift a finger to stop it.
You seem to think it’s no big deal to go “tic a box” for a Democrat. True, it’s an easy thing to do, and only takes a few minutes, once every few years. But doing this easy thing strengthens & lends a veneer of legitimacy to a system that works only for the elites running society.
Chunga’s Revenge (3:46) — I’m a socialist, & attempt to understand the issue in historical terms. I pretty much accept the analysis of the WSWS (http://www.wsws.org). I don’t believe there’s the slightest chance that the 2-party system can repair itself, & feel that those who DO think so, are just kidding themselves.
The marginalization of the Greens has much in common with the marginalization of socialists, though the Greens aren’t (officially) opponents of capitalism, & thus aren’t regarded as “enemies of the state” in the way that socialists are. Many Greens, however, are really closet socialists who accept the premise that the US population is so hopelessly ignorant & brainwashed, politically, that it will never be receptive to a platform openly advocating socialism. So numerous nominal Greens (including some of their candidates) are really socialists in disguise, so to speak.
Why do people actually believe that John Edwards, who also voted for the war and ran as a centrist, Clinton-style candidate in 2004, was suddenly the Great Progressive Hope? Sure, I heard what he was saying.
I just wasn’t buying it.
RichM wrote:
“But doing this easy thing [voting for a Democrat] strengthens & lends a veneer of legitimacy to a system that works only for the elites running society.”
I don’t believe that (not anymore, at least.) The veneer is pretty worn out at this point. It seems pretty clear to me that there are very few if any of these mythical “sheeple” or “ordinary voters” around who are fooled by this charade. When it comes down to brass tacks, everybody (even in Kansas) knows the race is narrowly circumscribed and that the first requirement is to placate the powerful. Some of us may be more hopeful (or naive) about the value of voting, but I think most of us are fairly cynical about the whole thing.
More importantly, no voting booth jujitsu would erode the veneer anyway. I may wind up voting Nader, because, what the hell, I like the guy. But I won’t do so because I think that will really open up our electoral system, and I surely don’t believe my vote will put him in the White House.
My point was simply that the concern expressed by Rall was out of proportion to the importance of the decision. At best, when we vote we are peeing in their pool. Personally, I prefer to piddle with Obama. It’s hard (but no doubt possible) to turn firehoses and tasers on your own citizens when you have made conciliation and warm hearted platitudes your entire platform.
If Clinton is inaugurated, I will have to endure 8 long years of wining about how Obama would have filled the sky with rainbows and made our boo-boos all better. Just like I’m hearing today.
Sure, when Obama gets crushed under the right wing spin machine, the pundits will lament the Democrat’s failure to capture the “center.” But that trope is inevitable. Should it fail, the pundits will simply trot out a new one. That’s just what they do.
re: myboysherman - “If all of the candidates look the same, it’s a farce. That doesn’t change when you withhold your vote.”
I said nothing about withholding my vote, except from those whose interests are diametrically opposed to mine. The implication should have been clear, which is voting for a candidate who DOES represent my interests, approximately.
True, ticking a box is a small effort. The physical energy expended in the act of filling in a circle is irrelevant. Ideas are relevant. Go to those.
Sarah J (7:52) - It was a product of two things. On the one hand, there’s a desperation among liberals to find a Democrat they can “believe in.” (That’s what the whole hysteria about Obama is, for example.) And on the other hand, Edwards did shift a bit to the left, relative to his 2004 centrism. He dared to bring up the forbidden subject of corporate power, to a certain extent; & moved a few notches towards significant opposition to the war.
Your position — being skeptical of whether he really meant it — was entirely reasonable. However, the media — which had been so kind to Edwards in ‘04 — got immediately very hostile & frosty towards him. Perhaps they too were skeptical of whether he really meant it. But in any case, they will not tolerate candidates who cross certain lines — even if only rhetorically. And they perceived that Edwards was doing just that. The feeling among liberals that he was “The Great Progressive Hope” was the mirror image of the media coldness towards him.
Ted Rall Rocks!
The reasoning in this article is sweet. For progressives there is no candidate unless you are drinking the kool aid.
Mr. Rall, nicely argued. I will be doing the same thing in WI on Feb. 19.
I was never for John Edwards; he was for me. On that Tuesday I will be there for the man who always had my back. Heck, he had all our backs. Most of us were just too star struck to realize it.
Seriousprofessor wrote:
“The implication should have been clear, which is voting for a candidate who DOES represent my interests, approximately.”
Did Rall have that option in the NY Democratic primary?
Even if he did have the option of, say, Kucinich, would pulling that lever have been any more powerful than wearing a slogan on his T-shirt?
I live in a state which won’t be voting for a couple months yet, so I won’t have the opportunity to vote for anybody but Clinton or Obama. And that’s if I join the Democratic Party in time to get my ballot. I would gladly have voted for Kucinich if I lived in NH. Perhaps we aren’t so far apart here.
I absolutely agree that ideas are relevant, but our elections are clearly not the forum for ideas. I wish they were. I hope one day soon they will be. I just don’t think they offer us much of an opportunity, neither now nor for the forseeable future.
Sorry seriousprofessor, I started to forget Rall’s article
(That he voted for Edwards.) But Edwards withdrew and so the point remains that his vote was a protest similar to wearing a Tshirt.
It appears that many progressives believe socialism would be the solution to our problems in America. That would be quite a switch from Bush`s plan to take from the poor and give to the rich and might take a while to establish.
Supposing that it was possible to put everyone on equal footing economically, which wouild require some amount of strife, how long would it take for it to become unequal again? Many of the privileged would again have more than their share, and many of the disadvantaged would again be poor.
The only workable method is to have a combination of redestributing wealth, which we had until Reagan came along, and some reward for extra effort so that there is motivation to support ones own family by work or study. Capitalism does not need to be a bad idea if kept under some control.
Kernel (9:06) - Here’s the weakness in that argument. When you say capitalism isn’t bad “if kept under some control” — the point is that it can never really be kept under control. Big business will always perceive any sort of regulation as an obstacle to profits, & will try to do whatever it has to, to get rid of that regulation.
The classic case is the New Deal, which was the most meaningful package of reforms in US history. The capitalist class only accepted it during the unique circumstances of the Depression, because at the time, they really had no choice; & they knew it. Yet they were always determined to get rid of the reforms, at the first opportunity. They bided their time until it was politically feasible to move to overturn the regulation. Their plan began to take shape in the early 1970’s. (Google on “The Powell Memo”, meaning former Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell.)
When you say it all seemed OK until Reagan came along, that’s how it looked on the surface. But actually, Reagan was just the vehicle for this movement that had been brewing for a long time. // Also, it’s important to realize that even during the 1950’s up through the 70’s, before the rightwing felt ready to start overturning the New Deal, corporate America was hardly suffering. They ALWAYS controlled everything that was important to control, even before Reagan. It was the difference (roughly speaking) between the richest 1% controlling 20% of the national wealth (in 1970), and their controlling 40+% (as they do now).
GRAVEL/NADER < => NADER/GRAVEL ticket, anyone?
http://www.petitiononline.com/granad08/petition.html
Be sure to thank John Edwards for voting for the Iraq War Ted Rall.
Clinton and Edwards did not vote for more inspectors. They voted for war. In fact, the resolution that Clinton and Edwards voted for has no conditions attached to it. It is a resolution for war to invade and occupy Iraq for any reason Bush determines.
What H.J. Resolution 114 “To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq” actually says:
“Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.”
[Section 8(a)(1): SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred–(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution.” http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm]
“The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/october02/houseres_10-10-02.pdf
“Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren’t really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That’s the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?…
We thought we learned this lesson. After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law — the War Powers Act — to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the President. No law can make Senators read the intelligence that showed the President was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it.
That is why it is not enough to change parties. It is time to change our politics. We don’t need another President who puts politics and loyalty over candor. We don’t need another President who thinks big but doesn’t feel the need to tell the American people what they think. We don’t need another President who shuts the door on the American people when they make policy. The American people are not the problem in this country - they are the answer. And it’s time we had a President who acted like that.”- Barack Obama, probably the next President of the United States
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php
Dennis Kucinich: “In answer to your questions about why I didn’t support former Senator John Edwards on the second ballot in Iowa: I have serious concerns about his connections to a Wall Street hedge fund, Fortress Investment Group. While attacking others for accepting campaign money from Washington lobbyists, he is up to his ears in money from Wall Street special interests.
He made half a million dollars in a single year for attending a few meetings for Fortress and has invested a substantial part of his own personal wealth in the hedge fund whose portfolios are responsible for sub-prime predatory lending practices, Medicare privatization, and an entire range of corporate sharp dealings that are driving the middle class into poverty.”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×3969318
Top Contributors to Edwards Campaign
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008
#2 Contributor
Fortress Investment Group
“The hedge fund that employed John Edwards markedly expanded its subprime lending business while he worked there, becoming a major player in the high-risk mortgage sector Edwards has pilloried in his presidential campaign.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002277_pf.html
“Of the 22 senators who reported reading the full NIE, eight are Republicans and 14 are Democrats. All but one Democrat on the 17-person Intelligence Committee in 2002 recalled reading the NIE: Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) told a campaign-trail audience earlier this month that he had, but later recanted. Edwards voted to authorize war.”
“Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, one of the senators who read the report and a staunch critic of the war, said the findings were “enough to have me vote against going to war in Iraq.”
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/few-senators-read-iraq-nie-report-2007-06-19.html
Hillary and the 2002 NIE
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/25/204032.aspx
RichM__ I agree with most of what you say about historical economics in this country, but there will never be a perfect system of running any group of people by men, as they are all flawed in some way.
There are only two scenarios that I can picture socialism working in. One would be if we all were Jesus freaks and would think more about our neighbors welfare than our own, so consequently would feel good about sharing.
The second scenario would be for an armed force (such as Blackwater) to take complete control and nationalize all assets to be redistributed equally which would cause much bloodshed and death. (Iraq) comes to mind.
In other words, much as it sounds like a wonderful idea, how big a chance do we have of becoming purely socialistic? The Democratic contenders have said they will work towards making conditions better for the working class, and I for one would like for them to have a chance to do it, as we may not survive more of the present situation.
I’m wearing a T-shirt for Edwards Feb. 19 in Wisconsin and symbolically voting for him. I’ll be freezing my ass off doing it, but still. I’ve given it a lot of thought and research and have written hundreds of pages about it, none of which bear repeating here. Rall’s piece arrives serendipitously, for I have been thinking along the same lines for weeks. In the general election I’ll opt for Obama, never for Clinton,and can anyone remember some guy called Kucinich? Didn’t think so. Consider how efficient the corporate media is when it decides to erase someone from public memory.
Ephraim, save yourself the cold. It could develop into something serious like pnemonia and then you’d have to be hospitalized which would save your life, but ultimately leave you indebted for the rest of your life. No, Edwards isn’t worth it.
I’ll never forget Kucinich. He was the last chance for this country.
Vote Green and stop consuming. You will sleep well.
Luvya Ted. Great work always. You didn’t expect anything more out of these Yahoos than I did.
Plan for and expect cruelty and disaster. Anything better than that will be a major win. That still doesn’t mean you have to vote for HRC or BHO, you can vote for Leonard Peltier as I have done in the past several cycles, then vote local, city council, propositions, the Mayberry USA stuff. Then go back to sleep. You don’t want to see the end of this movie: the good guys all get killed or run out on a rail, the town’s people busy themselves sweeping floors and deliberately looking intently at the ground, and the bad guys gang rape the Preacher’s daughter in the middle of Main Street while taking over the town.
Wait a minute, I must have missed an episode, they already did that. Oh, now I remember. In the end, the bad guys bankrupt everybody and start torturing scapegoats to make them tell secrets, organize the people into private militias for “Neighborhood Defense”, and then they turn everything into rubble and become cannibals. Now I remember. The episode is called, “The Last Cannibal”. Like I said, you don’t want to see the end.
Frankly I think Ted could have written a much better ending. On his worst day falling down drunk and loaded on thorazine it would still have been better.
It is the doom of men that we forget.
But lemme ask you a question: Is America just too large for Representative Democracy?
Peace.
RichM February 13th, 2008 10:01 pm
10-4. Add a small but essential piece, political execution and COINTELPRO. They couldn’t have Raygun until the movements for economic and social justice were DESTROYED. By the late 70’s combined with dble digit stag-flation they were. Heads down. Mouths tight shut. Noses to the grindstone. The rest is history.
And General Electric begat Reagan40. And the Plutocrats begat GHWB41. And the Plutocrat owned DLC begat Clinton42. And then the Plutocrats begat GWB43. And the Plutocrat owned DLC begat Clinton44? And we all went to hell.
You do good stuff.
Anyone who is counting on Barack Obama to do anything else but carry out the corporatista program has air between their ears. Stop living off some vain hope, get off your fat asses, and do something.
Peace Czar February 13th, 2008 10:21 pm:
GRAVEL/NADER NADER/GRAVEL ticket, anyone?
No Thanks! I think it’s time for Ralph to pass the mantle of National Election Spoiler to someone else. And Gravel sounds too much like Huckabee with his tax ideas. You don’t fix a broken system by breaking it in a different way.
I’m still thinking Mike Bloomberg may come in as an independent, there is your spoiler. Of course that won’t help progressives with the lack of choice, but at least they can then go vote green or socialist with a clear conscience.
RichM February 13th, 2008 7:47 pm
“I don’t believe there’s the slightest chance that the 2-party system can repair itself, & feel that those who DO think so, are just kidding themselves.”
What I do not get is why progressives continue to support the Dems. Or why conservatives continue to support Repugs.
To expect anyone elected president, or anyone in Congress for that matter, to facilitate pulling out of Iraq, is foolishness. Because of one simple reason: A pullout would amount to turning control of Middle East oil over to the East (Arab states, Russia, China). With Peak Oil upon us…and it’s only going to get worse…the impact on the citizens of this fat and sassy Empire would bring the masses into the streets and, maybe, through the White House gates. The thought of wealthy elites in a struggle with the “lower classes” for enough petroleum to maintain their obscene lifestyles is frightening. As is the thought of martial law forces mobilizing to maintain control of gas stations, heating oil depots and refineries.
Forget about terrorism. I’m waiting for some candidate to poses the question to voters: “Who would you trust to secure your oil supply?” McCain will probably be the first, since he’s already said he’s comfortable with troops being in Iraq (read the Middle East) for 100 years. To believe either Clinton or Obama wouldn’t say the same is delusional; as is a belief the US will be out Iraq, or any other country with a “strategic” oil reserve, any time in our lifetimes.
The idea of the US, with perhaps 5% of the world’s population, consuming 25-30% of the world’s energy and natural resources, is equally absurd and, as we are bound to discover, ultimately suicidal. Anyone who hasn’t already done so should ask themselves just how much of their share of the “goodies” they’re willing to give up to prevent any president from acting to preserve what they’re, no doubt, going to tell us is our own “best interests”.
And, anyone who hasn’t done so should visit Annie Leonard’s web site www.thestoryofstuff.com. And be the change you want!
The unhappy fact is that presidents are hamstrung - willingly or not - by the boundaries set by the corporate-congressional-military complex. Reform within those boundaries is next to impossible. Hillary knows this, but Obama does not. The empire will self-destruct before changing on its own volition. For more see adslibs.com.
Wayne Clark
Happy Valentine’s Day
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/Cmzm
Washington, D.C.
“We are not standing on the brink of recession due to forces beyond our control. The fallout from the housing crisis that’s cost jobs and wiped out savings was not an inevitable part of the business cycle. It was a failure of leadership and imagination in Washington – the culmination of decades of decisions that were made or put off without regard to the realities of a global economy and the growing inequality it’s produced.
It’s a Washington where George Bush hands out billions in tax cuts year after year to the biggest corporations and the wealthiest few who don’t need them and don’t ask for them – tax breaks that are mortgaging our children’s future on a mountain of debt; tax breaks that could’ve gone into the pockets of the working families who needed them most.
It’s a Washington where decades of trade deals like NAFTA and China have been signed with plenty of protections for corporations and their profits, but none for our environment or our workers who’ve seen factories shut their doors and millions of jobs disappear; workers whose right to organize and unionize has been under assault for the last eight years.
It’s a Washington where politicians like John McCain and Hillary Clinton voted for a war in Iraq that should’ve never been authorized and never been waged – a war that is costing us thousands of precious lives and billions of dollars a week that could’ve been used to rebuild crumbling schools and bridges; roads and buildings; that could’ve been invested in job training and child care; in making health care affordable or putting college within reach.
And it’s a Washington that has thrown open its doors to lobbyists and special interests who’ve riddled our tax code with loopholes that let corporations avoid paying their taxes while you’re paying more. They’ve been allowed to write an energy policy that’s keeping us addicted to oil when there are families choosing between gas and groceries. They’ve used money and influence to kill health care reform at a time when half of all bankruptcies are caused by medical bills, and then they’ve rigged our bankruptcy laws to make it harder to climb out of debt. They don’t represent ordinary Americans, they don’t fund my campaign, and they won’t drown out the voices of working families when I am President.
This is what’s been happening in Washington at a time when we have greater income disparity in this country than we’ve seen since the first year of the Great Depression. At a time when some CEOs are making more in a day than the average workers makes in a year. When the typical family income has dropped by $1,000 over the last seven years. When wages are flat, jobs are moving overseas, and we’ve never paid more for health care, or energy, or college. It’s a time when we’ve never saved less – barely $400 for the average family last year – and never owed more – an average of $8,000 per family. And it’s a time when one in eight Americans now lives in abject poverty right here in the richest nation on Earth. “- Barack Obama
Healthcare, Education, and Minimum Wage
“I’ll change our tax code so that it’s simple, fair, and advances opportunity, not the agenda of some lobbyist. I am the only candidate in this race who’s proposed a genuine middle-class tax cut that will provide relief to 95% of working Americans. This is a tax cut –paid for in part by closing corporate loopholes and shutting down tax havens – that will offset the payroll tax that working Americans are already paying, and it’ll be worth up to $1000 for a working family. We’ll also eliminate income taxes for any retiree making less than $50,000 per year, because our seniors are struggling enough with rising costs, and should be able to retire in dignity and respect. Since the Earned Income Tax Credit lifts nearly 5 million Americans out of poverty each year, I’ll double the number of workers who receive it and triple the benefit for minimum wage workers. And I won’t wait another ten years to raise the minimum wage – I’ll guarantee that it keeps pace with inflation every single year so that it’s not just a minimum wage, but a living wage. Because that’s the change that working Americans need.
My universal health care plan brings down the cost of health care more than any other candidate in this race, and will save the typical family up to $2500 a year on their premiums. Every American would be able to get the same kind of health care that members of Congress get for themselves, and we’d ban insurance companies from denying you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. And the main difference between my plan and Senator Clinton’s plan is that she’d require the government to force you to buy health insurance and she said she’d ‘go after’ your wages if you don’t. Well I believe the reason people don’t have health care isn’t because no one’s forced them to buy it, it’s because no one’s made it affordable – and that’s what we’ll do when I am President.
If we want to train our workforce for a knowledge economy, it’s also time that we brought down the cost of a college education and put it within reach of every American. I know how expense this is. At the beginning of our marriage, Michelle and I were spending more to payoff our college loans than we were on our mortgage. So I’ll create a new and fully refundable tax credit worth $4,000 for tuition and fees every year, a benefit that students will get in exchange for community or national service, which will cover two-thirds of the tuition at the average public college or university. And I’ll also simplify the financial aid application process so that we don’t have a million students who aren’t applying for aid because it’s too difficult. “- Barack Obama
Credit Card and Bankruptcy Law
“Finally, we need to help families who find themselves in a debt spiral climb out. Since so many who are struggling to keep up with their mortgages are now shifting their debt to credit cards, we have to make sure that credit cards don’t become the next stage in the housing crisis. To make sure that Americans know what they’re signing up for, I’ll institute a five-star rating system to inform consumers about the level of risk involved in every credit card. And we’ll establish a Credit Card Bill of Rights that will ban unilateral changes to a credit card agreement; ban rate changes to debt that’s already incurred; and ban interest on late fees. Americans need to pay what they owe, but they should pay what’s fair, not what fattens profits for some credit card company.
The same principle should apply to our bankruptcy laws. When I first arrived in the Senate, I opposed the credit card industry’s bankruptcy bill that made it harder for working families to climb out of debt. Five years earlier, Senator Clinton had supported a nearly identical bill. And during a debate a few weeks back, she said that even though she voted for it, she was glad it didn’t pass. Now, I know those kind of antics might make sense in Washington, but they don’t make much sense anywhere else, and they certainly don’t make sense for working families who are struggling under the weight of their debt.
When I’m President, we’ll reform our bankruptcy laws so that we give Americans who find themselves in debt a second chance. I’ll close the loophole that allows investors with multiple homes to renegotiate their mortgage in bankruptcy court, but not victims of predatory lending. We’ll make sure that if you can demonstrate that you went bankrupt because of medical expenses, then you can relieve that debt and get back on your feet. And I’ll make sure that CEOs can’t dump your pension with one hand while they collect a bonus with the other. That’s an outrage, and it’s time we had a President who knows it’s an outrage.”- Barack Obama
Fair Trade
“It’s also time to look to the future and figure out how to make trade work for American workers. I won’t stand here and tell you that we can – or should – stop free trade. We can’t stop every job from going overseas. But I also won’t stand here and accept an America where we do nothing to help American workers who have lost jobs and opportunities because of these trade agreements. And that’s a position of mine that doesn’t change based on who I’m talking to or the election I’m running in.
You know, in the years after her husband signed NAFTA, Senator Clinton would go around talking about how great it was and how many benefits it would bring. Now that she’s running for President, she says we need a time-out on trade. No one knows when this time-out will end. Maybe after the election.
I don’t know about a time-out, but I do know this – when I am President, I will not sign another trade agreement unless it has protections for our environment and protections for American workers. And I’ll pass the Patriot Employer Act that I’ve been fighting for ever since I ran for the Senate – we will end the tax breaks for companies who ship our jobs overseas, and we will give those breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages right here in America.”- Barack Obama
Civil Infrastructure
“For years, we have stood by while our national infrastructure has crumbled and decayed. In 2005, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave it a D, citing problems with our airports, dams, schools, highways, and waterways. One out of three urban bridges were classified as structurally deficient, and we all saw the tragic results of what that could mean in Minnesota last year. Right here in Wisconsin, we know that $500 million of freight will come through this state by 2020, and if we do not have the infrastructure to handle it, we will not get the business.
For our economy, our safety, and our workers, we have to rebuild America. I’m proposing a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years. This investment will multiply into almost half a trillion dollars of additional infrastructure spending and generate nearly two million new jobs – many of them in the construction industry that’s been hard hit by this housing crisis. The repairs will be determined not by politics, but by what will maximize our safety and homeland security; what will keep our environment clean and our economy strong. And we’ll fund this bank by ending this war in Iraq. It’s time to stop spending billions of dollars a week trying to put Iraq back together and start spending the money on putting America back together instead.”- Barack Obama
Really… doesn’t matter who you vote for, they’re not the one’s making the policy decisions anyways. They’re just “faces” of the establishment. So vote Clinton, vote Obama… really doesn’t matter. No matter which way you slice it, we’ll all be here this time next year pissing and moaning over the latest stupidity coming out of Washington.
emaho said: “A pullout would amount to turning control of Middle East oil over to the East (Arab states, Russia, China). With Peak Oil upon us…and it’s only going to get worse”
For a country such as the US that sings the praises of the “market”, they sure want to have the deck stacked in their favor. Why can’t they just buy the shit on the open market like everyone else?
Obama wants reconciliation with the Republicans, bipartisanship, and an end to divisiveness in this country. What exactly does that mean? Merging with the Republicans? Joining hands with Republicans and singing “Kumbaya?” No thanks. I’ve had enough of that already. Ever notice Republicans don’t speak of wanting bipartisanship. It’s party first with them and Israel 2nd……er, country 2nd.
Mr. Rall is right. Lefties aren’t represented. He’s also justified in wanting revenge and wanting someone who knows how to fight the Republicans who have been ruthless bullies and liars. Of course someone criticized him for not taking the high road, i.e. for not being the usual doormat.
Revision: Of course someone criticized him for not taking the high road, i.e. for not being the usual DEMOCRATIC doormat.
The only change Obama will bring is an end to the noton that there are differences in the agendas between the two parties.
Maybe Obama’s greatest achievement will be a grand unification of the two big parties into one big, happy, warmongering, imperialist, goobocapitalist party - ending, finally, the illusion of the US being a democracy. Whatever else could “reaching across the aisle” mean? Did Reagan reach accorss the aisle? Did Gingritch reach across the aisle? Do the rabid Bushlovers rach across the aisle? But, Clinton sure did, Pelosi sure is, and Reid sure is…
You DONT reach across the aisle to those that have made a mockery of the Bill of Rights and are international human-rights criminals! YOU ARREST THEM, TRY THEM, SENTENCE THEM, APOLOGISE TO THE WORLD, THEN PAY RESTITUTION!
This alarmingly prevalent idea that the key problem in US polity is divisiveness is manifestly preposterous on it’s face. Our politicians seriously need a field trip to Ottawa, Canberra, or London to see what vigorous (and quite healthy) parliamentary rancor REALLY looks like.
The problem is too much “bipartisan” concensus regazrding our bobsled ride into fascism and ruin, not “divisiveness”.
Hell, I wrote in Osama bin Laden since he has all the money.
ENOUGH!
- Every comment section in every blog I turn to this past week - no matter what the original issue - deteriorates into a fistfight between Obama and Clinton supporters. This divisive vitriol is well on the way to trashing the party, and if it keeps up,McCain/Bush could well be president next year.
Just let the candidates do their own campaigning, and then vote your choice when you go to the polls.
Great, you voted for John Edwards. But guess what? Voting is not an opinion poll. Voting is a pragmatic decision. If I want to drive to Philadelphia I have to decide on what route I’m going to take. There may be heavy traffic, narrow lanes and potholes but I have to make a decision. Voting for John Edwards is like turning around and going back home. Politicians are by definition flawed. I would love to vote for Dennis Kucinich, but, hey, he already dropped out by the time I could vote! John Edwards–the same thing. I was happy to vote for Barack Obama. A perfect candidate? Hell no. Lesser of two evils? You bet. But if more people had voted for the lesser of two evils in 2000, Bush would never have become President! Progressives have to become tough by making decisions that make a difference, not some kind of statement that in our day to day life means nothing.
Kernel, it looks to me like you’re confusing socialism with communism.
It also looks to me like you’re putting words in people’s mouths. Sure, this site is full of progressives, but it doesn’t look to me like any of them want to eliminate capitalism entirely. Maybe I’m wrong about that, though, since I’m only me, and not anyone else, so I’ll just say what I think, which is that capitalism, mixed with socialism, is the best and most useful economic system out there.
The trouble is that we now have in the US a form of Darwinian “survival of the fittest” capitalism for the poor, and socialism for the extremely wealthy. And that’s not cool at all.
First piece of journalism I read in here today I recognize as not at all propaganda. I hope your identity is not stolen by a well plastic surgerized look alike while you sit labotomized in Rockefeller’s basement drueling on yourself, awaiting the use of your body parts in various bio projects the king has ongoing…
I not only want to do away with capitalism, but finance. Count everything in calories. You work X calories expended. You can acquire product worth X calories of someone elses work.
Material has nil value, ALL of it divided exactly evenly…
I’m a Calorie Economician, the new community scare. Oh no a whole community of calorie economicians!? How’s our capitalizing going to endure?!
Regarding Dougnwagner Propaganda
Healthcare, Education, and Minimum Wage
I’ll make taxes a lot cheaper to pay, cause a lot of people are about to just stop paying taxes all together and they’re a lot more likely to stay busy doing meaningless stuff at the whim of corporate command if we just make it cheaper to pay taxes. Plus we need the money to keep building robot attack jets, so we can’t have you tax payers pulling out on us at this advanced stage in arm-a-gettin.
I will keep taking campaign contributions from financial interests in the same breathe I will note this is the order of business in Washington.
I will pay lip service to college kids, child care and the poor, promising exactly nothing, because that is what I intend to deliver…
(at least the guy’s honest about what he’s going to give right?)
I will keep you dependent on revolving door institutionalized hellth care, cause it’s easier for you then finding the valid solutions to your health problems. Watch the waving trinket, money grubbing doctor’s are good… Universally good, good for you…
$2500, $4000, Hellth is about money. Not about oxygen or nutrition… Your hellth will be found by cash alone. Or cc, checks, money orders, ATM…
If you can figure out what bureau to contact and afford to hire a lawyer to fill out the paper work, we’ll create a bankruptcy loop hole which allows the hellth industry financially tanked to pay off their debt, like they were going to do anyway, AND get back on their feet, unless the hellth industry cost them the use of their legs…
I’ll single handedly pass the Patriot Employer Act, which was unpassable in either a Republican or Democrat dominated senate…
NIRB that only grows… My NIRB will have it’s hand in every construction site from coast to coast, ensuring the wrong slurry is always used, the steel is grossly deficient and the bombs are all built right into the structure of the buildings…
Trying to put Iraq back together!? 50 airstrikes a month! every month. Do bombs put stuff together? In Obama world the bombs hit the ground running to reconstruct homes and apartment buildings and schools and roads and water infrastructure…