2012 US General Election Discussions: Start to Finish

[Kobi]

Miss Tick,

Thanks for the Huntsman rundown. I expected the conservative religious crap. It was the economics I was curious about. He, like most politicans today, is firmly rooted in the Milton Friedman disaster capitalism farce.

Briefly, disaster capitalism is when you take advantage of or create a disaster whereby you can overthrow the existing government, because is a threat to individual and corporate profits, and impose a certain economic order and laws to ensure this order proceeds unopposed. ( Think 9/11, think of the host of deregulation that has ensued since the Reagan era, think of selling off the infrastructure to private enterprise, think creative investment instrument expansion i.e. mortgage derivatives that caused this current global economic meltdown, think the busting of labor unions, think Iraq and Afganistan, think the Patriot Act and whatever the name of that newest thing Obama signed was). These are not individual, independent acts. It is a systematic and deliberate strategy.

Everywhere this was instituted i.e. Nixon did it to Argentina, the USA did it to Russia as a condition for financial aid thereby handcuffing Gorbechev, Thatcher did it to the UK, etc. it has been proven to be an unmitigated failure. A few people became fabulously weathy. The rest were fighting to just survive in the widespread poverty created by their new economic order. The coercion of the masses using intimidation, fear tactics, imprisonment and "disappearance" of dissenters is well documented. Sound familiar?

Pure capitalism might work as a theorectical construct. It has been an abysmal failure when it has been systematically implemented/imposed on unsuspecting peoples.

So, any politican from any party who continues to espouse the virtue of continuing down this path is a dangerous, freakin fruitcake to me.

And, I still think, all the crap about gay marriage, abortion, health care and all the manifestations of these, is a very concerted effort to keep "the masses" from concentrating on the bigger picture. Cant see or oppose the forest if you are lost in the trees. Cant focus on the forest when you are busy fighting amongst yourselves.

This is scary stuff but it sounds so surrealistic, it seems implausible. But it is very real, and incredibly scary.

[MsMerrick]

Originally Posted by Novelafemme

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.

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...

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Miss Tick,

Thanks for the Huntsman rundown. I expected the conservative religious crap. It was the economics I was curious about. He, like most politicans today, is firmly rooted in the Milton Friedman disaster capitalism farce.

Briefly, disaster capitalism is when you take advantage of or create a disaster whereby you can overthrow the existing government, because is a threat to individual and corporate profits, and impose a certain economic order and laws to ensure this order proceeds unopposed. ( Think 9/11, think of the host of deregulation that has ensued since the Reagan era, think of selling off the infrastructure to private enterprise, think creative investment instrument expansion i.e. mortgage derivatives that caused this current global economic meltdown, think the busting of labor unions, think Iraq and Afganistan, think the Patriot Act and whatever the name of that newest thing Obama signed was). These are not individual, independent acts. It is a systematic and deliberate strategy.

Everywhere this was instituted i.e. Nixon did it to Argentina, the USA did it to Russia as a condition for financial aid thereby handcuffing Gorbechev, Thatcher did it to the UK, etc. it has been proven to be an unmitigated failure. A few people became fabulously weathy. The rest were fighting to just survive in the widespread poverty created by their new economic order. The coercion of the masses using intimidation, fear tactics, imprisonment and "disappearance" of dissenters is well documented. Sound familiar?

Pure capitalism might work as a theorectical construct. It has been an abysmal failure when it has been systematically implemented/imposed on unsuspecting peoples.

So, any politican from any party who continues to espouse the virtue of continuing down this path is a dangerous, freakin fruitcake to me.

And, I still think, all the crap about gay marriage, abortion, health care and all the manifestations of these, is a very concerted effort to keep "the masses" from concentrating on the bigger picture. Cant see or oppose the forest if you are lost in the trees. Cant focus on the forest when you are busy fighting amongst yourselves.

This is scary stuff but it sounds so surrealistic, it seems implausible. But it is very real, and incredibly scary.

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.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Kobi

It was the economics I was curious about.

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.

[Cin]

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.

[Truly Scrumptious]

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

[PumaJ]

Every candidate’s economic position at its root is going to be the same.

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.

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

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.

I totally agree with you. And, I havent a really good solution to offer. I do have suggestions tho.

What I can say, is the pioneers of drastic change in this country, were those who were willing to put themselves out there, organize, speak to the realities, and fight for what was right.

We, as a people, have become very complacent yet we are not powerless. We just dont use the power that we do have in a systematic way.

Some of the power we have:

1. Voting. Not just the right to vote but choosing how we choose to vote. Does it have to be about evaluating and selecting the least offensive donkey in the herd?

Personally, I made the decision a long time ago that I might not be able to fight the machine but I can work to put a kink in things. This means I rarely vote for an incumbent. I figure if we keep turning over the politicians every term, no one can become too entrenched and an intregal part of the farce. The more turn over, the slower the process.

Example - look at the horror show of Congress after the last election. The turnover was unprecedented. The sides are so opposed to one another, so entrenched in their own power shit, so busy fighting one another, they have constipated the entire process of government. This is sometimes scary or used as a scare tactic. I would rather them be embroiled in a pooping contest than steamrolling over the people.

We can choose to NOT vote for the primary party candidates. Period. Both are corrupt. Both have their own agendas and neither have the good of the people as the basis of their beliefs and actions. If people start voting for other parties, it is another stick in the spokes of the machine. If done on a wide enough and consistent enough basis, it sends a message that their power and control are in jeopardy.

For as much as we complain, imo, we have GIVEN those with the power - economic and political, the power they have. And, we can take that power back. They know it too. Retaining that power, and discouraging people from acting against it, is what the Patriot Act and that new bill are all about.

2. We have a boatload of economic power if people would work together. Recent examples....Verizon nullifying their attempt to charge a 2 dollar fee for something or BOA wanting to charge a 5 dollar fee for using your ATM. Both revoked because of widespread complaining and threatening to stop using their services.

How much power would we as a people have if we systematically decided to boycott a particular company for whatever reason? Dramatic decreases in income gets attention....really fast.....not just for the company being boycotted but for others in the same business.

The dynamics of power games is a good guide to the things that can help the collective us. Others here are more versed in them than I am.

3. Sheer numbers. In sheer numbers, there are more of "us" than there are of "them". We have become accustomed to our numbers making an impact using electronic means. What kind of impact would the visual display of sheer numbers have? What kind of impact did sheer numbers have in the past?

My point, I think, is we are not helpless, hopeless, and powerless...unless that is what we want to be. What we might be is unorganized, fragmented, frightened of the uncertainties that come with the process of profound change, and lacking in leadership.

I think it was Einstein who said, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. We need to do something different, demand something different, use a different set of rules etc.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by PumaJ

Yes, I think that is true of all of the Repub candidates. I don't think that is true of Obama.

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.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Kobi

I totally agree with you. And, I havent a really good solution to offer. I do have suggestions tho.

What I can say, is the pioneers of drastic change in this country, were those who were willing to put themselves out there, organize, speak to the realities, and fight for what was right.

We, as a people, have become very complacent yet we are not powerless. We just dont use the power that we do have in a systematic way.

Some of the power we have:

1. Voting. Not just the right to vote but choosing how we choose to vote. Does it have to be about evaluating and selecting the least offensive donkey in the herd?

Personally, I made the decision a long time ago that I might not be able to fight the machine but I can work to put a kink in things. This means I rarely vote for an incumbent. I figure if we keep turning over the politicians every term, no one can become too entrenched and an intregal part of the farce. The more turn over, the slower the process.

Example - look at the horror show of Congress after the last election. The turnover was unprecedented. The sides are so opposed to one another, so entrenched in their own power shit, so busy fighting one another, they have constipated the entire process of government. This is sometimes scary or used as a scare tactic. I would rather them be embroiled in a pooping contest than steamrolling over the people.

We can choose to NOT vote for the primary party candidates. Period. Both are corrupt. Both have their own agendas and neither have the good of the people as the basis of their beliefs and actions. If people start voting for other parties, it is another stick in the spokes of the machine. If done on a wide enough and consistent enough basis, it sends a message that their power and control are in jeopardy.

For as much as we complain, imo, we have GIVEN those with the power - economic and political, the power they have. And, we can take that power back. They know it too. Retaining that power, and discouraging people from acting against it, is what the Patriot Act and that new bill are all about.

2. We have a boatload of economic power if people would work together. Recent examples....Verizon nullifying their attempt to charge a 2 dollar fee for something or BOA wanting to charge a 5 dollar fee for using your ATM. Both revoked because of widespread complaining and threatening to stop using their services.

How much power would we as a people have if we systematically decided to boycott a particular company for whatever reason? Dramatic decreases in income gets attention....really fast.....not just for the company being boycotted but for others in the same business.

The dynamics of power games is a good guide to the things that can help the collective us. Others here are more versed in them than I am.

3. Sheer numbers. In sheer numbers, there are more of "us" than there are of "them". We have become accustomed to our numbers making an impact using electronic means. What kind of impact would the visual display of sheer numbers have? What kind of impact did sheer numbers have in the past?

My point, I think, is we are not helpless, hopeless, and powerless...unless that is what we want to be. What we might be is unorganized, fragmented, frightened of the uncertainties that come with the process of profound change, and lacking in leadership.

I think it was Einstein who said, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. We need to do something different, demand something different, use a different set of rules etc.

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.

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

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 have mixed emotions about Obama as well. I think his heart is in the right place.

I suspect his campaign was financed by some pretty powerful people and those are the people affecting what he can and cannot do. My gut tells me Obama may have thought he would have more control/independence than he or maybe any other recent President has had.

Take a look at Obama's cabinet members/key government appointees and see how many of them were Goldman Sachs executives just before and during the banking meltdown and the bailout. Take a look at the sweet deal Goldman Sachs received in the bailout at the expense of other banks.

The major Wall Street firms contributed a little over 15 million to Obama's 2008 campaign. The bailout cost the taxpayers 700 BILLION. Thats a pretty hefty return on an investment eh? Wish my savings had that rate of return.

Thinks thats bad? According to a team at Bloomberg News, at one point in 2009 the U.S. had lent, spent or guaranteed as much as $12.8 trillion to rescue the economy. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know...-bailout/3309/

Just boggles my tired old brain.

[PumaJ]

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.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by PumaJ

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.

[AtLast]

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.

[PumaJ]

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.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

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.

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.

[Soon]

/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/

[AtLast]

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.

[MsDemeanor]

Originally Posted by AtLast

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!

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

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by MsDemeanor

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

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