Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Voters Have Two Candidates, No Choice
With Mitt Romney’s super-PAC limo now on cruise control to victory at the GOP convention, voters are left with only two reasons to vote against Barack Obama: Either they are desperate to return a white man to the White House or they feel strongly that it is time to break the glass ceiling denying Mormons the presidency.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks at the University of Chicago. (AP / Steven Senne)
Out of a sense of tolerance I could cotton to the latter—heck, why should the bizarre beliefs of Romney’s church be a deal breaker? I’m hoping for a strong Jewish contender someday and wouldn’t like her burdened with defending Old Testament claptrap.
The problem in this mind-numbing Republican primary season is that the campaign has exposed Romney as not just another white male Mormon like some of the fairly reasonable senators who have represented Utah. Or like Romney’s own father, George, at one time the governor of Michigan. No, this Romney is now widely regarded as the vulture capitalist he is, a politician who is a say-and-do-anything opportunist with no moral limits on his outsized ambitions.
Nothing is sacred to the former Massachusetts governor, not even his own signature health plan that he sold to that state’s voters as the standard for rational government decision-making as regards the deep problems faced by our economy. The weaknesses of what Romney and the GOP deride as Obamacare have been all too obvious in the plan Romney touted in Massachusetts—a mandate to sign up without the cost restraints that a single-payer government program would offer. Now, with a new national plan from Rep. Paul Ryan emerging from the U.S. House, Romney and the Republican Party generally seek to compound that error by undermining Medicare and Medicaid, two programs that offer at least a modicum of cost control. Instead, the candidate and his fellow Republicans would turn consumers over completely to the tender mercies of for-profit insurers.
The justification for gutting what little remains of enlightened government programs to aid the vulnerable is, of course, the dreaded federal deficit. (Lest we forget, seniors were foremost among the vulnerable until the arrival of the programs now under attack.) What is so outrageously hypocritical about the proposals from both Romney and Ryan is that they do not touch, and indeed would further open, the spending spigot that caused all of the red ink following President Bill Clinton’s budget-balancing act.
Both Romney and Ryan want to increase President George W. Bush’s tax breaks for the wealthy, which seriously cut revenues while treating as sacrosanct the Cold War levels in military spending that Bush put in place in a wildly irrational response to the 9/11 attacks. This week Ryan announced that defense spending is off-limits, and Romney has campaigned for an increase in what represents more than 40 percent of the non-mandated federal budget.
I can’t wait for the moment in a presidential debate when Romney talks about the need for even more advanced U.S. weaponry to counter the emerging military threat from Communist China and Obama ever so coolly points out that Bain Capital, the company that Romney co-founded, has been supplying those Red tyrants with surveillance equipment to better monitor their citizenry.
With Ron Paul’s fortunes as a presidential candidate declining, there is no pressure on GOP leaders to link a withdrawal from the imperial adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan with a reduced federal handout to the military-industrial complex. Nor will the Republican leadership confront the party’s responsibility for the nation’s economic collapse, the subsequent loss in tax revenues, and the Fed and Treasury policies that bailed out the Wall Street charlatans who invented this meltdown.
Instead of reigning in Wall Street greed, the GOP is demanding a reversal of even the tepid efforts of the Obama administration to hold the financial industry accountable to honest business practices. And, at a time when the largest multinational companies have shifted jobs and profits abroad, the GOP stands for rewarding that betrayal of American workers by eliminating all taxes on overseas corporate profits.
The pity in all this is that a legitimate critique of the Obama record—present to some degree in the Paul dissection of the president’s war policy and his continuation of the Bush Wall Street bailout strategy—will not be heard in the general election debate. Instead, on the one hand, we will have Obama offering clever-sounding arguments for establishment policies that fail to deal with high unemployment, a brutal level of housing foreclosures and sharpening income inequality. And on the other hand there will be a Republican Party so steeped in the ethos of greed, racism and war-mongering that it would leave even Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, were they alive, with no choice but to vote for Obama as the lesser evil.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


58 Comments so far
Show Alljohnnyred, you did. "And on the other hand there will be a Republican Party so steeped in the ethos of greed, racism and war-mongering that it would leave even Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, were they alive, with no choice but to vote for Obama as the lesser evil." Add to this the fact that Sheer fails to mention alternatives to Obama, such as Stein, Anderson, Richardson, Stewart, etc. Sheer is telling the reader he has no choice but to vote for Obama.
Interesting article! But we must vote on the record of candidates not the rhetoric which in many and in the Mitt's case his own campaign has said will go into reset mode come the election. The Mitt has to get through his convention first. Vote for the Mitt to get rid of the current GOP president worse than any other president in history. ABO (Anybody But Obama). Right on!
When I first saw this headline I thought it could mean either that we have no choice because the two candidates are Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum or it could mean that of the two candidates there is no real choice because Romney is so rotten.
Then I looked at the author's name and saw it was Scheer. Then I knew it was the latter. Finally I forced myself to read the article and realized I was right.
Once again--as always, come election time--self-proclaimed "progressive" Robert Scheer is here to tell us why we should temporarily give up all that nonsense about "corporatism" and line up dutifully to vote for our only "real" choice, the nominee of the Democratic (sic) Party. Scheer talks the talk in between elections---after all, he does represent the Left on Left, Right and Center"--but at election time, his true colors show: He is a Democrat, but his idea of democracy starts and ends with the Duopoly. He is incapable of imagining a multiparty democracy in this country, and actually does not see the need for it. In his world, if everyone simply voted for the Democratic Party everything would be just fine. Boo, hiss!
Scheer's mis-spelling of "reining-in" as "reigning in" may be no more than a Freudian recognition of the real power-position of the Demopublican party here in the good ol' USA!
Don't vote for a war-criminal. Even if Romney takes the White House as a result of massive third-party or write-in voting, so what? When the sh*t hits the fan, even the dullest of dullard American voters will wake up and realize the 2-party system is merely an effective charade to control selection of candidates AT THE STARTING GATE! The real power in this country cares little which of the candidates win. They've BOTH been bought! But they FEAR and DREAD when the people have a REAL choice, and then, I suppose they'll fall back on "lead poisoning" as a solution for an unwelcome winner. Oh dear, we're screwed!
Is this the same Robert Scheer who wrote?....
"Elections Are for Suckers"
Robert Scheer
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/elections_are_for_suckers_20120209/
"Our own elections, the ones our government has modeled for the world, are a hoax. What other word should we use to describe this year’s presidential election, whose outcome will turn on which party’s super PACs gets the most generous bribes from billionaires?"----Robert Scheer
So why would Scheer or anyone else knowingly participate in a hoax? (Roll eyes upward and shaking head). I don't plan to. I'm done with it. If elections made a difference in a positive direction, they would be illegal. I've heard for years the threat/fear saying, "you're playing into 'their' hands by not voting." Who is this "they?" Regardless, "they" don't care what I or any of us think otherwise we wouldn't be where we are today. "They" have shown repeatedly "they" don't care what we think. So why participate in corruption and a hoax? Don't people have any ethics? One is not required to vote. The only message that IS sent to anyone in a position of power is that someone is a sucker for still participating in the charade/hoax. I want no part of it at any level (including local...the corruption here is the same). I'm just wondering when some self-described "progressive" websites will begin banning people who are not in lockstep with their Obama? But for those who care to participate in the hoax, corruption and are still stuck in the "I/you must vote" rut because one has been programmed to think that by parents/guardians and the Ministry of Propaganda, here's a candidate one can vote for:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_sRxndx4u4
sadly obama and romney’s main concern...
is neither we-the-people nor our nation...
and sadder still sit those hoodwinked voters...
picking low-caring traits for their top administration!...