I find it ironic that Michelle Bachman calls Obama a "socialist" and herself a strong Christian, when Jesus's sayings and actions were radically socialist for his time. Somehow, I don't think Bachmann and Santorum would even be in his constituency-and I'm a non-Christian.

Ah, from her mouth to god's ear. Especially the part about the gasping statement of a thankfully dying breed.

But are they really dying? According to mainstream news, which I was coerced into watching for a few minutes last night, the Republicans and the Democrats are neck and neck and it's anyone's election. Whatever. This past 4 years has shown me that there really is little difference between them anyway. Our elected officials are bought and paid for by corporations and the financial sector. But then I think of how much worse it might actually be if a republican got in. Then I remember Obama, a democrat, our great hope, signed National Defense Authorization Act.

Addressing his record- As his voting record in Congress is more scrutinized, the Tea Party will be seething! The guy supported every Bush 43 "bigger government" plan. Plus, the many actions Bush proposed that had no source of funding- just put it on the gov credit cards!

On Bachmann- she has an uphill battle to keep her seat in MN. Love it! Getting the Tea Party out of our Congress is at least a plus in a better direction.

If you combine 8 and 10, the logical conclusion is that he believes his daughter should be denied health insurance coverage for life due to a pre-existing condition from birth. I doubt that he is capable of connecting the dots....

That's for sure! I was thinking this very thing. Then, there is Paul's "just let them die" stance due to not having insurance. Both of these stances just don't ring as respect for the sanctity of life these yahoos "appear" to believe so deeply in.

Between these two and Newt's total grandiosity about the whole damn election being about him is just nuts. I might have to tune into the debate Saturday to see if he goes postal on air versus Romney. Gingrich is something else- playing the "no going negative" sing song. He invented negative politics. After reading more about his mother's mental illness and the first marriage at age 19 to his HS teacher (Jackie) to which his mother said "raised him the rest of the way," I think his mental instability is quite clear.

And these people are running for president!

So I am driving home from the VA listening to progressive radio....randi rhodes...and I hear 2 stories about Romney and Santorium and I had heard the Santorium one on Rachel last night.

Romney: He is taking his family on the 'great american road trip vacation' and they are going to take Seamus the Irish Setter family dog with them. Romney STRAPS Seamus to the roof of the vehicle....no not in a crate, actually just strapped down to the roof.........and drives off for vacation. Randi was not sure if the dog lived or not. But this kind of stupidity makes sense to me since Mitt (as an adult male Mormon) wears magic underwear.

Santorium: His wife had a stillborn 26 week old baby...that's 6.5 months...a sad thing for his family. Well, Santorium and wife leave the hospital by loading their other children (one as young as 2 yrs old) AND THE DEAD BABY, in mom's arms in the car and drive across Pennsylvania to grandma's house so grandma can hold and commune with the dead baby. Apparently all the kids got to hold and commune with the dead baby during the car trip. They have the dead baby with the family for about 24 hours before they take it to the mortuary.

I really wish the mainstream Republicans would take back their party. Not one of the Republicans in the race should be President. Even Jon Huntsman has been forced to take far right wing stances on things like abortion. And Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul are the ONLY Republicans in the race (past and present) who understand and believe evolution is the basis for life on this planet. The rest of them think their God created the world in 7 days and believe that is science.

I am getting tired of all of them. Let Nov come very very quickly.

Separation of church and state, what's that? Santorum's view. It is not a good thing.


http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/05/opinio...ss_igoogle_cnn

Santorum Booed in New Hampshire While Discussing Gay Marriage
 

This story doesnt do the interchanges justice. The local news had better coverage. I was especially pleased to see young metrosexual looking folks asking very pertinent questions for which the sanctimonious one had few useful retorts. They booed him right out of the building. Made me proud.

------------------------------------------------------

A crowd of mostly college-aged students at a New Hampshire town hall booed Rick Santorum when he compared gay marriage to polygamy. Santorum spoke at the College Convention 2012, a forum organized by New England College, which apparently drew a politically diverse crowd. BuzzFeed's Rosie Gray* transcribes the exchange between the student and Santorum:

"How you justify your belief based on these morals you have about all men being created equal when two men who want to marry the person that they love --"

Santorum cut her off and said "What about three men ... If you think it's ok for two, you have to differentiate with me why it's not OK for three."

The New York Times reports that people booed specifically when Santorum said "If you’re not happy unless you’re married to five other people, is that O.K.?” And some in the crowd booed again at the conclusion of the session. This is of course not the first time Santorum has caused conflict with his slippery slope-ish arguments. It also reminds us of Mitt Romney's very tense Q&A with the audience at a New Hampshire event Wednesday, where an Occupy Boston representative and a Chinese-American woman both asked Romney semi-hostile questions. With the Iowa caucuses over, it's "No More Mr. Nice Midwestern Crowd." More like "Live Free or Die" we suppose.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/polit...arriage/47056/

I so agree- the field of GOP candidates is mind boggling. Why the hell the mainstream GOP puts up with this mess is beyond me. What bothers me the most is that a very small group of the Tea Party religious fringe does have the nation held hostage! Just the idea that they think it is OK to NOT act to create jobs due to beating Obama is insane! People are hurting and Congress could act.

Mainly, however, I have had it with the infiltration of religion upon personal rights and freedoms that have no business being handled by government, period. That is BIG government! And i am someone that values faith and spirituality. But feel it is personal.

I don't see much changing as the country is so divided and the order of the day is to be as mean spirited as possible. We are almost evenly split down the middle and just caught up in this whirlwind of hatred.

That the country could be so divided when they are given a group of crazies to chose from and one sane incumbent, albeit relatively indistinguishable from a republican president, doesn't say much about the sanity of the country in general.

Although I suppose part of the problem is that corporate owned Madmen types frenetically and adeptly spin lies into reality with such success and regularity that most citizens wouldn't recognize the honest truth if it sat down with them at church and introduced itself. The other part of the problem is that most people are too apathetic, disinterested and just plain lazy to root out the truth for themselves and even if they did they are poorly prepared to decipher it from the propaganda. We've been buying the lies for so long the truth is buried so deeply you need experience in excavation to get to it. Selling the Republican snake oil to people is easier than pie at this point. The last piece is its all too overwhelming and depressing to fight, people feel powerless. Better to be blissfully blind cheerfully kicking at the same old enemies we have been taught for years are to blame for any and all our problems. The usual suspects like poor people, immigrants, homeless, jobless, terrorists, drug dealers, foreigners, atheists, queers, feminists, people of color and pretty much anyone who tries to pull the wool from our eyes are to blame. The power elite have done their jobs well.

And despite all the conservative complaints about big government they are prepared to continue to make the part of the government that infringes on our personal freedoms as huge as they can. The best government would be one that has a religious component. The only part of government they want to shrink is the part of government that demands equal treatment and that wants the corporations and the rich to pay their fair share, the part of government that feels a sense of responsibility for all its citizens and would spend some of government money (our money) on social programs and infrastructure. That's what they mean by small government.

WARNING: Major sarcasm to follow. Try not to miss it :)


The Republican stuff to date has been kind of interesting to watch.

Romney, as my former governor, is just being himself....a fast talking used car salesman who is so slick most people dont even realize a lot of what he is promising is already in place. They also fail to remember Obamacare is just a federal enactment of the Romneycare he pushed thru this state i.e. mandatory health insurance, penalties for not having it, subsidies for premiums, cant be denied coverage etc. Of course Mitt rammed this thru without any mechanism in place to pay for it and then hightailed it out of the state. (It is a decent and affordable alternative to costly private insurance.) I see Mitt and I have the urge to duct tape his mouth shut just on principle.

Santorum, amuses me. He tries so hard to be sanctimonious. But all I can think of is he is fodder for a SNL skit on "Welcome to the Santitarium of Rick's Mind where the pretty colored pills can cure what ails you." He will play well in the Bible belt but, I expect, he will fizzle even quicker than Perry and Cain. People have real everyday concerns i.e. jobs, the housing crisis, the economic meltdown, the loss of savings and financial security, health care. Gay marriage, rehashing abortions, and the rest of the emotion/faith based stuff some republicans fall back on when they have nothing else of substance to offer, I expect will come back to bite them in the ass given the logistical issues of mere survival these days.

I like Ron Paul. He reminds me of Frank Perdue. I keep waiting for an advertisement of him espousing a "chicken in every pot". Seriously tho, I wouldnt vote for him but his economic stuff has some merit.

OMG I forgot Newt. When I think of Newt which is never, I see 3 witches hovering over a boiling cauldron. One says, "the recipe says add an eye of Newt. F*&^ it. I want this batch to be extra strong. Throw all of him in there!"

(End of sarcasm)



The person getting a lot of play here lately is Jon Huntsman. The Boston Globe has endorsed him, people around town are talking about him. Have to do some research cuz I dont know anything about him. Any one have any insights on where he stands on stuff?

Elections always worry me, more so during tough times. IMO, American voters are notorious for being un and undereducated consumers who have relatively narrow focuses when evaluating candidates during the best of times. They seem to have absolute tunnel vision during difficult times. This makes them very unpredicable and prone to vote with their emotions rather than their heads.

Kind of gives new meaning to....it was the best of times, it was the worst of times.

Every time I think that I have read and heard it all, something else about these right-wing lunatics just leaves me so flabbergasted, I barely have words to articulate how I feel!

Truly, what has happened to the United States of America? What ever happened to separation of church, state and insanity?? When are the citizens of this country going to wake up and take the USA back to the principles on which it was founded ( though by a bunch of white bio men)?

What indeed ever happened to the Rebublican party? Even my 87-year-old father who has voted the ticket in every election since he was 21, told me thinks all the Republican candidates are a bunch of idiots.

I used to be a political activist but got away from it while trying to live my life and support my family but also because I got so discouraged and felt so disenfranchised as a woman and as a lesbian in this country. I have 3 granddaughters. I worry that abortion rights will be chipped away to zero by the time it will matter to them.

I just feel so frustrated by all of it.

Apparently, the lesson he wished them to learn, was that that, was what abortion did..... From what I heard this morning...

This just is so creepy weird- and I believe it was his way to make an anti-aborion point to his kids.

I wonder if his wife really wanted to participate in this- post stillbirth. My Mom had to carry a dead fetus full term and give "birth"- from what she said about this experience (I wasn't born yet), she experienced both accute and post-truamatic stress symptoms. My parents had a service for the baby- with only themselves in attendance. It was a very personal loss for them and it sounded like they needed to just have this be between the two of them. This just feels so controlling in terms of his wife being in any state to think through doing this. He is just creepy!

Here is a little something about Jon Huntsman. I left out the obvious stuff like who he is, how rich he is, how like Romney he is etc. And concentrated on his ideas. And how the moderate label seems to mean that he’s not crazy like the rest of the Republican candidates but his ideas are eerily similar. That’s how they get ya, smoke and mirrors. You’re just happy to be able to vote for someone who doesn’t need to be committed. Anyway there are a few quotes, some of his platform, and, of course, commentary by yours truly.

“As governor of Utah I signed every pro-life bill that came to my desk,” Hunstman told the crowd. “I signed the bill that made second-trimester abortions illegal, and increased the penalty for doing so. I signed the bill to allow women to know the pain an abortion causes an unborn child. I signed the bill requiring parental permission for abortion. I signed the bill that would trigger a ban on abortions in Utah if Roe v. Wade was overturned.”

“I do not believe the Republican party should focus only on our economic life — to the neglect of our human life,” he said. “That is a trade we should not make. If Republicans ignore life, the deficit we will face is one that is much more destructive. It will be a deficit of the heart and of the soul.”

In 2004 Huntsman supported Utah’s constitutional amendment outlawing marriage for gays and lesbians, but then later strongly supported a 2009 initiative to allow civil unions.

Apparently most of Huntsman’s economic policy is tax reform. And most of it will hurt the working class and help the rich especially lowering the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% and eliminating capital gains and dividend tax rates. He also claims to want to eliminate all tax deductions, credits, and loopholes. I guess that would hurt or help everyone equally depending on how you look at it. But I don’t see much there that will actually help the economy.

Huntsman claims to want stuff to be made in the US once again but he wants to open up trade even more. Free trade agreements are what make it so easy for companies to take their money, their business and their jobs offshore in the first place. We need huge tariffs not less or NO tariffs. If we don’t tax imports from US corporations who do no business in the US, the economy, the infrastructure and the country itself will continue with its downward spiral. No matter how many tax cuts we give businesses and corporations, no matter how much government money we make available to businesses and corporations it will not help the people in the US unless we force corporations to pay for importing goods into the US, which will either generate money for government spending or force corporations to stay and make stuff in the US which will create jobs at home. It’s not rocket science. It’s just logical. And to continue to say otherwise, which is what politicians/elected officals insist on doing is just outright lying.

Yet the meme continues to be that giving money and tax breaks to corporations and the rich will result in jobs for the rest of us. When clearly anyone with a coherent thought process can see that nothing even remotely like this is happening or has been happening. And unless some laws are changed it will continue to NOT happen. This throwing money at corporations and the rich and getting nothing in return has been the case for a very long time. And since it would be impossible to be in politics and not understand the idiocy of this oft regurgitated propaganda about this behavior resulting in jobs, I can only surmise it is a purposeful deceit that is willingly propagated in order to further the interests of the rich and powerful regardless of the result to the rest of us and to the country itself.

I’ve yet to see a politician running for president who seems to actually give a fat rat’s ass about the country.

Jon Huntsman purports to be a moderate republican. I think he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He is someone whose supposed politics will be such that voters may be able to tolerate them so he looks to be quite dangerous to me. Dangerous because he is just another potential political arm for big business like Obama is, but he is also a right wing conservative dressed up for public consumption and that could be even more costly in the end. It’s possible I could be just a paranoid conspiracy theorist. However, neither of those options are mutually exclusive.

Here is an article about Huntsman:
“'Moderate' Jon Huntsman Releases Right-Wing 'Jobs' Plan
http://www.thenation.com/blog/163098...wing-jobs-plan

“Huntsman, a former Utah Governor, positions himself as the sane, mainstream alternative to the wingnuts that make up the rest of the Republican field. But the plan is a compendium of conservative hobbyhorses.

The vast majority of his plan has nothing to do with creating jobs, at least in the short term. He focuses heavily on “regulatory reform,” which sounds like some non-ideological effort to streamline government but is mostly code for pandering to the Tea Party. Huntsman would repeal the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill and the Affordable Care Act. He would “Dramatically Rein In The EPA” and “Curb The Excesses”—meaning eviscerate the essential regulatory power— of agencies like the National Labor Relations Board. All of this will please the Koch brothers, but what it has to do with spurring hiring in the near future is unclear, especially since conservatives like to moan about business being unable to hire in a climate of uncertainty. What they mean by uncertainty, it turns out, is if a business owner doesn’t know if his top marginal income tax rate might go up by four points when the Bush tax cuts expire. The uncertainty of proposing enormous alterations to existing law is apparently no problem at all.”

Since Kobi brought up Ron Paul, does anyone else feel comfortable sharing their thoughts on him with us? I am taking a serious look at him but have never voted any other way than a full Democratic ticket.

Paul is a die hard Libertarian dressed up as a Republican. He does not believe in government except in the actual smallest way possible. No Social Security, no Medicare/Medicaid, no welfare/aid to dependent children, no free lunch in public schools, no Departments of Education, Housing, Health and Human Services, Commerce, no EPA, no Labor Relations Board, no military bases outside the US, no foreign aid, no United Nations, no civil rights act, no affirmative action, no government subsidies, no regulatory oversight of anything (banking, farming, oil drilling, health and other insurance, etc).

He believes in only free market capitalism and that an individual is responsible for their lot in life no matter what. The free market is the conscience of society. He suggested in a debate that a person without health insurance should just die because it's their fault they don't have insurance. He is also an MD and is incredibly narcissistic. His son, Senator Rand Paul (R) (KY), is just as scary.

Read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged by Any Rand...or any of her books.....

He does however believe in evolution. He believes all drugs should be legal.

Go to his website and read and then actually think about the consequences of his free market economy and rugged individualism philosophies.

edited to add: the one inconsistency in his no government politics is abortion. He does believe the government should outlaw abortions.

Novelafemme, you asked this: I find Paul's stance on too many issues to be much too extreme for my tastes. In addition, I find his ideas about our foreign policy to be poorly informed & frightfully naive. Though he has a few ideas that on the surface seem appealing, I find that they are based on a point of view that is very far away from my basic values.

The Nation has a pretty good article about him, "Ron Paul's Strange Bedfellows"

Can you believe this?
 

To add to what has already been said:

There are some things about Ron Paul that really scare me. His stand on immigration for one. Among a wide assortment of immigration reform he wants to see implemented that are disturbing this is my favorite; he doesn't want children of illegal immigrants who are born in the U.S. to be citizens.

He doesn't want us to get involved in a war with Iran and that is surely our next war so that's good.

He is adamantly against a woman's right to choose.

He has a sort of left handed upside down backward stand on gay marriage. He believes it is a state's decision. He doesn't want to see a federal law. He did vote for DOMA. He doesn't want marriage legalized across the country. And he hopes to do this by keeping it in the hands of individual states and allowing, as DOMA allows for the federal government to refuse to recognize state gay marriages, for one state to refuse to recognize another state's or another country's marriage. Not very good news for binational couples and Paul's immigration policies would also be a nightmare for binational couples.

Not that it's up for questioning to my knowledge but here Paul wrote of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

"[It] not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife."

Apparently Paul is of the opinion that we are in need of a color-blind society. And since we do not have one the Civil Rights Act failed. He also appears to believe since on cannot legislate tolerance then human rights and whether people get them or not should be kept out of the hands of government and left to individual citizens to decide. A feeling which explains his position on gay marriage a bit more clearly.

He is against abolishing the electoral college and would also like to see the members of the state legislatures chose US senators instead of having them voted in by popular election as they are now.

From what I can gather economically Paul is still with the rest in protecting big business and corporate America. He just has different jargon to explain his positions. He takes a slightly different road but it's the same route. As with most of his stands it's all very convoluted but mostly the results are the same. To me the reason why shit things are happening isn't as important as shit things are happening. If you just shift the reasoning for allowing shit things to continue to happen I don't see how that will make those to whom shit things are happening feel any better.

To me really it's the same old free market capitalism bull shit.

I have a family member, albeit a bit of a stretched one.. who is a very serious Ron Paul supporter, and has been for quite awhile.
I will say this, many things Ron Paul is for, I agree with, when it comes to Foreign Trade policy, get out of war policy etc.. I also like that he is pretty much not changing any views to fit the moment.
What I don;t like are his die hard Libertarian notions, that we would all be better off, if we rolled back the Constitutional amendments, like Civil Rights and hs general idea that we should all just let the free market decide whatever ;)
Now the kind of "rugged individualism" is very appealing at first thought !
But, at second look, it's more like having a football game, without any rules.. ! Which is essentially might makes right ....and what , imho, the people that wrote the Constitution, were struggling against imbuing out nation with...

I totally agree with you. The reality is though how can we realistically believe that any national candidate can ever stray from the path and get elected or if elected hold office for any length of time. Unless we take corporations, the financial sector, the fat cats with all the money and all the power out of Washington it is a relatively redundant done deal, with a few minor forest for the trees differences just to keep us believing, no matter who we elect (and I use the term loosely). All the candidates are exactly the same because they are bought and paid for by the oligarchy that runs the country. It's like you said all that other stuff keeps us distracted.

I guess I don't see any individual politicians having much power to stray apart from that unimportant stuff.

Every candidate’s economic position at its root is going to be the same. That’s why nobody is going to point out the lie that putting money into corporations is going to result in jobs. Nobody is going to talk about what free trade is really doing to everyone. Nobody is going to tell the truth about what is happening with the economy. Nobody is going to talk openly about why we will not see the economic sector regulated. Nobody is going to admit that deregulation is the problem and logically speaking regulation is the answer. There is a reason why we don’t ever get to hear a national candidate with a truly different spin. It certainly can’t be because there are no alternatives to what we have. Everyone who ever runs for office, especially nationally, can't all just naturally be free market capitalists. No politician ever ever ever wants to look at some palatable form of social democracy? How can that be? I mean given numbers alone social democracy under some palatable form would have to come up. Unless there is a reason why it can't? And I believe that reason is the oligarchy who runs the country.

It reminds of that movie Super Size Me, when the guy said every time his kid went by a Mcdonalds he was going to smack him so that his kid would not associate good things with Mcdonalds. That’s what has been done to us. Every time anyone ever says socialism they are accused of the most heinous things. Over time nobody associates any thing good with socialism.

A little humoUr, since the GOP hasn't given us enough to laugh about
 

If you're looking for a third party alternative . . .why not give the Canada Party a try?

Yes, I think that is true of all of the Repub candidates. I don't think that is true of Obama. I say that based on his history, legislatively, & personally. At least I've never seen any hard evidence of that being true of him over the 10 yrs. I've been paying attention to him, ever since he gave his speech against the war in Iraq at an anti-war rally in Chicago on 10/2/02. He was a State Senator at the time. More about Obama's political positions here.

This is not to say that I agree with all that Obama has done, however. It is merely to point out that he is not like any of the Rebup candidates. Some on the Left disagree strongly with Obama. It is my observation that they don't get it about Progressivism in general & that they didn't pay adequate attention to Obama being a rather centrist Progressive on economic & foreign policy issues. Yet he made no secret of his views for they permeated every interview, speech he gave & book that he wrote. Since he has become President it has become searingly clear that he has been forced into some actions as the result of complete obstructiveness by the Repubs in the House & Senate. That several Blue Dog Dems have joined in that obstructiveness is disgusting in my view.

Truman was the President when I was born. Eisenhower became President when I was very young. I started paying attention to presidential politics with Kennedy's campaign. The culture wars on a national level began under Reagan, though they'd begun in California when he was Governor there. What we are seeing today is an uber extreme version of what was begun back then. Including runaway Capitalism with a capital C.

BTW an excellent book about Capitalism via US companies & others & the effect on other nations is "World On Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability", by Amy Chua.

I'm not sure what to say about Obama. I voted for him in 2008 and I'll probably vote for him in 2012. Economically speaking though he differs little. He has protected the financial sector and he has plenty of Wall St. people advising him.

He talks a good game but if you see the bills that have been passed into law during his administration, I think you will find he took care of who he needed to take care of to stay alive in politics in America.

I completely agree with you. Feet on the street is totally what we need. And yes there are more of us than them, like 99% more, more or less *grin*. And systematically taking our rights away is exactly what is happening. And so much more. Like privatizing war and militarizing the police. Corporations have their own armies and the US army itself is so far removed from the US people it's scary.

First we cheerfully surrendered our rights because we believed we could trade freedom for safety and security. Now we are having them coerced from us. I don't know too many people who supported the passing of the National Defense Authorization Act which allows the military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American citizens arrested in the United States, without charge. Yet pass it did. And Obama signed it as a xmas present for us all. Who is a terror suspect? That is up for interpretation. Perhaps a visual display of our sheer numbers could be interpreted as terrorism? But you are right we are not helpless or hopeless. We just have to come together and fight back.

I voted for Clinton twice for Pres., though he wasn't my favorite candidate in the Dem primaries. Clinton signed some things into law that I think have resulted in negative effects on our economy. One example was the signing of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act which served to repeal parts of the Glass–Steagall Act. This allowed the consolidation of commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies. However, the investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies (the financial industry) did not operate under the same regulations as the banking industry. big problem there. BTW, the Right had been trying to get the GSA repealed pretty much since it was passed in 1933.

Obama is in favor of regulatory reform & on July 21, 2010, he signed into law the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. This is also covered on this page, Wall Street Reform. Whether or not this legislation has been or can be as much as we need, I can't say for sure. What I'm most disappointed about is the paltry "health care" reform. For the past 20+ yrs. I've held nursing positions that have put me in the position to work with kids & families who are grossly underserved in the matter of healthcare due to the lack of insurance. I can't describe what effect that has on me, but what I can say is that I & most of the other nurses, NPs & MDs that I know were & are in favor of universal health coverage. We are not very happy with the reform that has happened & believe that Obama did a major cave-in on the issue. However, the small changes that will happen are better than none. So much more is needed.

Overall, I firmly believe that as a nation we will be in even deeper shit if any of the Repub candidates were elected to the Presidency. Obama for all of his warts is so much better. Just my opinion & sorry I've gone on a bit of a rant.

I think it all went to shit during the Reagan years and kept on with a downward spiral for us and a constant climbing for the wealthy, now the country is a barely recognizable shadow of its former self. No jobs, nothing made here, no infrastructure, encouragement and incentives galore for corporations to offshore where its easier to pollute with impunity, the resources are cheap, and the workers cheaper. Not to mention no import taxes. I am sure politicians have things they would like to accomplish during their terms however, the financial elite have such a hold that it is impossible to expect that candidates in national elections will be able to stay viable without Wall Street money. And you can’t expect the financial sector to just give money for nothing. We can all connect the dots from there.

That said, I agree not all candidates are created exactly equal in ALL issues. I think there are issues outside of economic ones where we can find wiggle room. Unfortunately right now economics is killing us.

I just ranted about Newt & Santorum in the racism thread- could have thrown Ron Paul in too. Women's health & reproductive health care along with most of the GOP's field and attitudes about race just point to my not considering voting for any of them, no matter who ends up the nominee. Romney's economic views are just more of what began with Ronald Reagan and pander to the most wealthy.

Like many have stated, I don't see Obama as in any way, my "perfect" candidate or free of Wall Street ties. Yet, I do think he has a human soul and also earned his way through life by putting his nose to the grindstone. I don't know how anyone can be elected to the US presidency without being in bed with someone- which isn't exactly something I like.

The first general election I voted in was in 1972 when Nixon won a second term against George McGovern, who I voted for. I have almost always felt like I was voting for the "lesser of 2 evils" since. I hate this.

What I think right now is that there is positive movement in the economy and that a change in the president and his policies is a big mistake at this point. I also think that the last thing he wants to do is get us into another war with Iran and has the intellect and temperment to deal with that situation.

What I really think is that cannot allow the Occupy movement to die out. It will effect change that is more responsive to the working and middle class eventually. Patience.

Miss Tick, I agree that things started to go down hill in a big way under Reagan, & have gotten progressively worse since then. Same thing happened in California during & after his governorship there. I moved to Oregon from San Francisco in 1977, but having many family members in California, I've more or less kept up with what happens there..very sad in many ways:-(

AtLast, I think that Obama has fewer Wall St. ties than many others, but I also think it is impossible in today's political world to not have some. It seems that he favors more regulation of the banks & financial industry than any other president since FDR, a stance that is not earning him any more points with many in the financial industry & certainly fuels a great deal of the negative press about him in the MSM. Overall, though, IMO, he needs to show more backbone & stop trying to be so damned conciliatory with those on the right. Perhaps we are seeing finally seeing some of that from him.

The fact that there are so many uber conservative players in the Repub field, hoping to become Pres. horrifies me. I cannot remember a time when this has been the case in our nation's politics. Obviously, the culture wars are alive & well. I was very happy to see that Santorum was booed in N.H.

Oh, yes, I remember the Reagan years in CA well! Probably because of being in the mental health field as well as having a mentally ill sister, my greatest criticism of him was his dismantling of the mental health system in CA without much of anything for very ill people to have as support services. Frankly, I thank Reagan for the start of the huge numbers of homeless mentally ill in this state. People, that with treatment and community based housing with programs and effective/consistent medication use could be productive people in our communities. And the needed services and resources for families of the mentally ill have forever been pretty much non-existent. Another aspect that can be so beneficial in the mentally ill having a fairly good life. Family support is critical but also very difficult- not easy to have mentally ill members in one's family at all- extremely stressful and expensive if you want your family member to have treatment (insurance benefits for mental illness remains practically non-existent).

I do support Obama and will vote for him. Also, again work for his campaign. No, I don't think he is as tied to Wall Street and the banks as so many others are. YES- I am appreciating his recent realization that the GOP in Congress really never intended to work with him and the Dems and his being bolder. His recent recess appointments are critical to economic growth and people being able to build back their shattered credit.

Presently, I am having a big problem with the hawkish garbage about Iran being presented by GOP candidates (except Paul). It is a sensitive situation in which threats of US military intervention would be just insane! Tonight during the GOP NH debate, I saw the very same insane strategies coming from the GOP field that we saw in Bush 43 (actually, 41 as well). Hell, both Perry & Santorum think we should go back into Iraq! They do not want us there any longer and Iran is a sovereign nation. Santorum & Peryy think we should just re-invade!! I hate hearing of Iraq pretty much crumbling into a state of civil war. But, we knew this would happen at the onset of all of Bush's lies! We have no business nation building anywhere. We have to use diplomacy- and have to accept that our form of democracy is not going to work in many areas of the world and a sovereign people have to choose their destiny as they see fit. No, I don't like that so many innocent people all over that region are killed each day, but we cannot save them.

It was so obvious tonight during the debate that every one of them were choking on their words about the first question concerning better economic news with private job growth! Romney, especially had a hell of a time with having to acknowledge this and make a point that he was glad that some we finally getting jobs again (he isn't, it's a win for Obama). There was no way that any of them could have stood up there and slam the better (not as good as we need) job creation numbers- think of how the public would react to that! Rather amazing, as congressional republicans have done every thing possible to block any of the Dems/administrations ideas for job creation- and guess what- it is steadily improving! Makes me think about how much further we could be along if the jackasses had thought about the working and middle classes and not obstructed the various things that were put forth when both houses were held by the Democrats, but not by enough to get around all the damn filibustering by the GOP! There is probably not one other thing that peeves more than this because of how much people have been struggling and our own legislative body simply played politics.

This is where I see the main thrust of the Occupy movement playing a big role in identifying income disparity over not only the past decade, but over 30 years (Reagan "trickle-down" economic policies)- and where it's messages will ring in the ears of voters in November. I honestly believe that it, along with what Obama's administration has been able to do (including health care reform) will play a major role with the "common" electorate. Also, women and POC, especially our Latino populations will give Obama another 4 years.

However, it can't stop there. There are fundamental changes in all aspects of our economy, workers rights and the role of government as well as campaign finance reform that must be achieved. And please- make it so that Obama is able to make at least one more Supreme court nomination. By 2014, the mid-term elections have to end with Democrats and Independents (with liberal and progressive leanings that include radical environmental legislation, taking both houses to set the stage for what needs to be accomplished in the next administration and Congressional sessions for many years ahead. That's why I say patience.

Vice President Santorum?
 

/snip/

"Make no mistake: even if Rick Santorum loses the Republican nomination, he could very well become Mitt Romney's running mate," warned HRC president Joe Solmonese. "A Romney-Santorum White House could set back our progress for years."

While none of the candidates is a darling of the LGBT community, the possibility of Santorum emerging even as part of a Republican ticket has the potential to rile LGBT voters like no other. The HRC points out his infamous "man on dog" comments in its letter, but there's a long track record of antigay positions it could have picked from, including a recent comment that gay parents would be worse at raising children than convicts.

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_N...s_It_Possible/

I've decided that although I will work here in CA for Democrat candidates and Obama campaigns, my main political energy is going to be about a Constitutional Amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision.

This will take years to accomplish, but as I see it, the single most important challenge to our democratic processes in the 21st century. The last Constitutional amendment attempt I threw myself into was the Equal Rights Amendment that was never ratified by the number states required. It was initially introduced in 1923, just after women gained the right to vote. It fell apart in 1982 without state required ratification and even if it had gained enough states to ratify, the extension it was give back in I think 1979, most likely would have been overturned.

So strange to look back and think about the biggest "threat" to the ERA given by those that opposed it was that women would be then subjected to combat roles during times of war if serving in the military. Hummm.... such irony when one considers the role of our women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan today without the ERA ever being ratified!

There were 59 years in which the ERA was tossed about and never ratified! That is only one year less than my age now and my Grandmother was among suffragists that first introduced the ERA. So, I guess I better get busy with working toward the possibility of seeing Citizens United be overturned within my lifetime! However, it will have to be one hell of a lot shorter time frame!

Bernie Sanders appears to be serious about taking this on, but he is older than I am! So, I think that this effort needs to begin with the gathering of young voters as it may take one hell of a long time to ever see it become a ratified constitutional amendment. However, it has such a direct effect on young people coming up in the US in terms of actually having their vote mean anything! Unless one is a billionaire.

On the other hand, the 21st Amendment was ratified in 10 months.

Oh, yes.... I feel better... thanks.... Well, sort of..

:chocolate: