Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

    Spinney's look at faux Republicans . . .


    The Enablers

    The Central Role of Faux Republicans in the Anatomy of Decline



    by FRANKLIN C. SPINNEY
    Gaeta, Italia.

    Readers beware; what follows is a biased book review. The author Mike Lofgren (bio) is a very close friend of mine, and, as some of you may may already know, I have been flogging his important new book, The Party Is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted. Mike is a conservative of the now forgotten old school, more at home with the likes of Robert Taft, Eisenhower, and Lincoln than right wing ideologues like Newt Gingrich or plutocratic highway robbers like Mitt Romney.

    Casual readers of Lofgren’s aptly titled bookmay well conclude that he is harder on Republicans than Democrats. In a technical sense this is true. Having served on the Republican staffs of the House and Senate Budget Committees, he was in a much better position to observe and understand their hijinks than those of the Democrats. So, it is not at all surprising that his book has more detail describing how the ideological Republican crazies created the current political-economic mess that is poisoning our culture and wrecking our economy. But it would be a great mistake to conclude that Mike is arguing that the Republicans are THE culprits. This book is about how the Republicans and Democrats worked together to sell out the middle class.

    The author is a modest, unassuming individual, who at first glance would appear unlikely to write such a book. He never sought the kleig lights. He never hung out with the gucci shoe crowd to pave his way into high paying lobbying job on K Street. Lunch for Lofgren was not at the Prime Rib or Capital Hill Club, but a simple sandwich in a brown bag. This modesty of life style and demeanor hides a principled intellectual, who has the character to go where his reasoning and observation take him. And a pen in Lofgrens deft hands, combined with his deep understanding of political history and acid sense of humor, becomes a sharp, deeply penetrating harpoon aimed at the heart of his subject. In addition to harpooning the bloated degenerate Republican whale, Mike harpoons the Democrats by demonstrating subtly, yet persuasively, how their growing “uselessness” arose out of an enervating sense of entitlement to power.

    That sense of entitlement mutated Democrats into what we in the Pentagon would call THE ENABLERS of Republicans. The Democratic enablers unwittingly played a crucial role in the demolition of the American dream, not unlike that played by infiltration troops in blitzkrieg. Infiltration troops soften up the front by wiggling through defenses to create holes and weak areas for the tanks to roar thru and reap chaos and destruction in the enemy’s rear area. Only in this case, the rear area being ruined is the American middle class and the role of tanks is taken up by the flow money supplied by the oligarchs who feather their nests by buying Democrats as well as Republicans in one seamless auction.

    Put bluntly, to protect their sense hereditary entitlement to the power bequeathed by the coattails of FDR and the New Deal, the Democrats abandoned their progressive heritage and moved to Wall Street, Big Pharma, Defense, etc., insensibly becoming faux Republicans. If you doubt this, look at the enervating, quasi-neoliberal ramblings of the self-inflating Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) or the cynical triangulations and warmongerings of Messrs. Clinton and Obama. Their abdication of progressive principles gave Republican crazies more room to get even crazier, and together the faux Republicans and the real crazy Republicans reinforced each other to create a rightward shift in the American political dynamic that unleashed the evolution of a new gilded age, together with the re-emergence of a plutocracy that Russian oligarchs would envy. And this happened in a remarkably short time of 30 to 40 years.

    In so doing, the Democrats sold out their constituency and colluded in the historic swindle that brought the great American middle class to the brink of impoverishment and debt peonage.

    If you think collusion is too strong a term, I would urge you to think about Bill Clinton’s (the DLC’s choice for president in the 1992 election) collusion with Republicans in the nullification of the Depression era Glass-Steagle Act in 1999, which was one of the main deregulatory initiative that unleashed the excesses that led to the 2007-8 financial meltdown. Clinton, by the way, did not pick up his grips and retire to a modest house in Independence Missouri like Harry Truman; he chose instead to join the plutocratic elite where he is now well on his way to becoming a card-carrying member of the one-tenth of one-percent club of the mega rich. The bottom line: the Democrats’ sense of entitlement and the consequent corruption of their progressive principles has been a necessary, if not sufficient, cause of the of the current political-economic mess that is destroying what is left of the middle class in our good ole USA. It would be a great mistake to allow the hilariously disgusting Republican hijinks in Logren’s masterpiece brand it as an anti-Republican polemic and miss his main message.

    Mike, of course, states clearly that his subject is how the madness of the Republicans and the uselessness of the Democrats reinforced each other over the last 30 to 40 years to hose the American People. It is the degenerate nature of this symbiotic relationship that is his and should be the Left’s call to arms.

    I do not count on this happening. I expect the faux Republicans will try to exploit the embarrassment of riches in Mike’s book for a narrow short-term political advantage, in yet another demonstration of the hypocrisy that is a consequence losing mentality.

    In closing, I ask readers to think the fact that this laudatory review of The Party Is Over appeared in Pat Buchanan’s American Conservative magazine, not some Democratic rag trying to get leverage in the coming Presidential election. That should be taken by the Left as an example to emulate. The real question in my mind is whether progressive counterparts to the American Conservative will use Mike’s call to arms to summon the curiosity and the courage to explore the ramifications of Lofgren’s subtler analysis of the “enablers” of decline.

    Franklin “Chuck” Spinney is a former military analyst for the Pentagon and a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, published by AK Press. He be reached at chuck_spinney@mac.com

    Comment


    • Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

      NY Times deconstructs the GOP . . .

      Main Streeters are the biggest bloc, a pragmatic, establishment-supporting wing of the party that has for years produced its presidential nominees. Although less ideological and less assertive on foreign policy than some elements in the G.O.P. herd, they are arguably the most loyal to the party and its most reliable voters. They are Republicans first, conservatives second. Main Streeters are looking for some degree of compromise on Capitol Hill to get things done; they are not so thrilled by purists.


      Standard Bearers

      Mitt Romney, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, John McCain. Presidents Bush I and Bush II are standard-bearers emeritus.

      Motivating Issues

      • The economy
      • Cut deficit, taxes, regulations
      • Repeal Obamacare
      • Gun owners’ rights
      • Anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage
      • Pro-energy subsidies




      Tea Party:

      The populist, more radical Tea Party wing has a deep mistrust of experts, elites and even the G.O.P. establishment. Sees issues in stark black and white; has no appetite for compromise. They are conservatives first, Republicans second.

      Standard Bearers

      Jim DeMint, Grover Norquist, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin. Paul Ryan, though not in the House Tea Party Caucus, is nonetheless a rock star.

      Motivating Issues

      • The economy
      • Slash deficit, taxes, regulations
      • Repeal Obamacare
      • GuAnti-abortion, anti-gay marriage
      • Anti-environmental regulations
      • Gun owners' rights
      • Seal the border



      Evangelicals:

      One bloc, deeply rooted in religion, with two wings that see a decline in American values. Both care more about their conservative agenda than fealty to the G.O.P.

      Standard Bearers

      The White Evangelical wing, dominated by Southerners, is perhaps three-quarters of this bloc. Michele Bachmann, Tony Perkins and Mike Huckabee are standard-bearers. Rick Santorum leads the Conservative Catholic wing.

      Motivating Issues

      • The economy
      • Anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage
      • Creationist theories, God in public sphere
      • Cut funds for Planned Parenthood
      • Slash deficit, taxes, regulations
      • Repeal Obamacare
      • Gun owners’ rights




      Libertarians:

      The G.O.P.’s odd men out (two-thirds are male), Libertarians are not an easy fit in the party. Like Tea Party supporters, they are pro-business and anti-government, but less religious. They are more affluent and better educated than many Republicans.

      Standard Bearers

      Ron Paul has been the most visible leader; son Rand occupies the same political ground. But they want government regulation of some private conduct: both oppose almost all abortions; most libertarians do not. Gary Johnson, once a G.O.P. presidential hopeful, is now the Libertarian candidate.

      Motivating Issues

      • The economy
      • Slash deficit, taxes, regulations
      • Repeal Obamacare
      • Gun owners’ rights
      • Privacy rights; abortion rights
      • Opposed to the drug war
      • Opposed to Patriot Act
      • Fiercely isolationist



      Disaffected:

      The most economically wounded bloc, so named by Pew for their skepticism toward both big business and government. The system, they believe, is rigged for the rich. Least loyal to the party, and least likely to vote.

      Standard Bearers

      They only lean Republican and thus lack similarly minded leaders. Voting for Democrats is unlikely but not impossible.

      Motivating Issues

      • The economy
      • Wall Street greed
      • Concentration of economic power
      • Anti-immigration
      • Pro-safety net



      Endangered or Extinct:

      Northeast moderates in Congress have dwindled to a handful of vestigial politicians like the retiring Senator Olympia Snowe as voters there have turned more Democratic. Even after the G.O.P. romped in the 2010 election, only 2 out of New England’s 22 House districts were in Republican hands.

      National security voters Neoconservatives, advocates of a hawkish foreign policy, took a beating in 2006 amid broad opposition to the Iraq war. Their constituency has largely disappeared, but the agenda lives: Mitt Romney is offering an updated version to an electorate now less focused on foreign policy.

      Liberals Hello? Anyone?

      Comment


      • Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

        Anybody see how the lady recapping the votes at the GOP convention is not saying Ron Paul's name or the votes he gets? How juvenile. If this is a close election and Ron Paul supporters all vote Libertarian or decide not to vote for Romney because of this treatment, somebody will be very sorry.

        Comment


        • Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

          Originally posted by cjppjc View Post
          Anybody see how the lady recapping the votes at the GOP convention is not saying Ron Paul's name or the votes he gets? How juvenile. If this is a close election and Ron Paul supporters all vote Libertarian or decide not to vote for Romney because of this treatment, somebody will be very sorry.
          my summary of the 2012 election...

          Comment


          • Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

            Originally posted by metalman View Post
            my summary of the 2012 election...


            +1

            Comment


            • Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

              It is not looking good for Romney in these latest polls.

              Obama continues to poll ahead in Ohio and Florida. Rasmussen has Obama +3 nationally. Obama approval rating back near or over 50% in several polls.

              Looks I'm going to lose my wager this year...

              Comment


              • Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

                Originally posted by Slimprofits View Post
                It is not looking good for Romney in these latest polls.

                Obama continues to poll ahead in Ohio and Florida. Rasmussen has Obama +3 nationally. Obama approval rating back near or over 50% in several polls.

                Looks I'm going to lose my wager this year...
                yep...

                Why Barack Obama Will Win the Election Easily

                Pollster Nate Silver has done an excellent job of assembling all of the known political data on where the presidential race stood as of Wednesday. His analysis leads him to project that Obama will beat Romney 51.2 percent to 47.6 percent in the popular vote, and 311 to 227 in the Electoral College where only 270 votes are needed to win. Overall, Silver gives Obama a 76 percent chance of winning the election.

                Those who don’t follow the data intensively can be forgiven for not knowing what good shape Obama is in, because it is rarely reported in the mainstream media. There is a simple reason for this: it has a huge vested interest in maintaining the idea that the election is so close it cannot be called and will come down to the last vote cast on Election Day.

                That is because the media have huge political operations with many highly-paid commentators who need people reading and tuning in daily to see if their preferred candidate has made any headway. There is also an enormous amount of data being produced daily that requires reporting and analysis—polls, campaign contributions, charges and counter charges, endorsements, gaffes and so on. It is not hard to spin this vast cacophony of material in such a way as to maintain the fiction that the election will be close.

                The media, collectively, are in the position of sports announcers calling a game where one team is heavily favored and well ahead. They need to keep people watching so that advertisers will get value for their money. So they use every cliché in the book to tell viewers that “it ain’t over till it’s over” and about all the times the losing team has come from behind to win and so on and so on.

                http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Column...lpP50OoJPiP.99

                Comment


                • Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

                  You win some, you lose some. The NBA season is right around the corner.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

                    It's inevitable! Either Obama or Romney will win. We're screwed.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

                      Originally posted by Ghent12 View Post
                      It's inevitable! Either Obama or Romney will win. We're screwed.
                      +1 AGREED!

                      I've always been impressed by the ego size of oligarch members who feel compelled to run for public office. Maybe it's just the truly smart ones that choose to stay backstage. Romney's gaffes - a misnomer, his conversational take on these issues are commonplace among this crowd (note the lack of response - no clapping or cheering, most continue dining in the video), are explored below:

                      Mitt Romney: a full dissection of the video that launched a thousand gaffes






                      While the 47% of Americans who don't pay federal income tax got most of the flak in Mitt Romney's remarks to a wealthy clique of his supporters – now captured for posterity thanks to a hidden video camera – let's not overlook the remaining 53%, many of whom also received flesh wounds and collateral damage from Romney's gaffe-operated machine-gun.

                      Once the initial shock from Romney's comments passes, Latinos, women and Jewish voters will join senior citizens, members of the US military, compassionate conservatives and the less well-off as among those wounded by the Republican presidential candidate's potshots. At least Dick Cheney only ever hit one person while out hunting. Romney, while on the chase for donations, managed to wing much of the US electorate, in one way or another.

                      Here's a gaffe-by-gaffe guide to Romney's self-immolation.

                      The 47%-plus
                      There are 47% who are … dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims … These are people who pay no income tax … So my job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

                      The media's fact-checking machines have roared into life and churned out the many obvious flaws in Romney's statement: that the 47% he alludes to includes senior citizens depending on social security and Medicare, the working poor, members of the US military, and the out-of-work, as well as those who do pay taxes in the form of federal payroll taxes, state and municipal taxes, not to mention the national and local sales taxes that are impossible for most individuals to evade.

                      Perhaps the oddest part of Romney's formulation is that these people somehow form an inevitable voting bloc for Obama. In the case of older retired voters – who don't pay income tax on social security and receive generous healthcare benefits from the state – that seems unlikely, given that national polls have the over-65s as one of Mitt Romney's strongest bases of support.
                      What of the other parts of the 47% could Mitt Romney have cut off to spite his face-time with fundraisers?

                      • Those unemployed or in difficulties in the course of this devastating recession, who Romney has been trying to woo with his promises of jobs, find themselves labelled as spineless.
                      • Students, both because they typically don't pay federal income tax on account of low earnings and because many of them are also recipients of low-cost government grants or loans.
                      • The working poor, such as a family of four earning a household total of $40,000. They may not have to pay federal income tax, thanks to earned income tax credits, but they can hardly be accused of either believing they are victims or of not taking responsibility for their lives.
                      • Members of the US military serving in war zones, who are not required to pay federal income tax on their pay and benefits, and are directly employed by the US government, may not be happy at the thought they have a victim mentality.

                      Israel and Jewish voters

                      We have a potentially volatile situation but we sort of live with it, and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it. We don't go to war to try and resolve it imminently.

                      Another group of voters that Mitt Romney has had trouble reaching – in spite of repeated attempts – is Jewish voters. Poll after poll shows Obama with a wide margin in support, as Democrats have traditionally enjoyed. But a recent Gallup poll published by Buzzfeed Politics put it at 70% for Obama and just 25% for Romney.

                      The relationship of American Jews to Israel is a complex and multi-faceted one, but it's hard to imagine many shades of Jewish opinion finding something to celebrate in Romney's remarks on the Israel-Palestine issue: in essence, shrugging it off.

                      The hawks – who would approve of Romney sabre-rattling remarks regarding Iran – would prefer more full-throated support from a American presidential candidate. But the majority, especially those who favour a two-state solution, would be unhappy with Romney's remarks that "the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish," having rattled off a weak series of objections, and appearing to think that the West Bank borders on Syria.

                      The idea that a US president would merely punt on the most difficult issue in modern geopolitics – which is what kicking the ball down the field means – is among the most extraordinary remarks to come out of these tapes.

                      Women voters


                      Romney's failure to win more support from women voters is the over-riding reason for his failure to overtake Barack Obama in the opinion polls since becoming the GOP nominee. The Florida tapes suggest why: when prompted by a discussion with the wealthy donors, Romney offers only his wife Ann as evidence of his appeal to women voters.

                      And even then, Romney makes what sound like cynical remarks about his wife's role in the political process: "We use her sparingly now, in case people get tired or attack," he says, although he assures the room that she will be on the campaign trail frequently.

                      Mitt's other meta-analysis again suggests a cold sense of calculation when speaking about his wife: "We had a person named Hillary Rosen who attacked her and that made Ann more visible to the American people, which I think was helpful and gave her a platform she wouldn't have had otherwise." How gallant.

                      The only other issue that women voters might be interested in, it would appear from this tape, is The View, the ABC daytime talkshow. Although Romney counsels The View, aside from one conservative – Elizabeth Hasselbeck – the other hosts are described as "women who are sharp-tongued".

                      Latino voters
                      Had [my father] been born of Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot of winning this. But he was unfortunately born to Americans living in Mexico. He lived there for a number of years. I mean, I say that jokingly, but it would be helpful to be Latino.

                      A joke it may have been but Romney's remarks can't have helped him gain ground with yet another group he is struggling to win over: Latinos. "The insult of all insults, Mitt Romney says if he was Latino he would win the presidential election, as if being Latino would have given him any advantage to win the White House," was one of many sharp responses, that one coming from Democratic congressman Xavier Becerra.

                      Romney's joke came on the same day his campaign was boasting of a new and high-profile attempt to target Hispanic votes, including an appearance before the US Hispanic chamber of commerce.

                      As with his remarks about women voters, Romney's comments suggest that identity rather than policies are what win elections, which may explain his personal shape-shifting. What he fails to understand is that his policies, especially on immigration and his risible "self-deportation" idea, are what is holding him back with Latinos, rather than his ethnic identity.

                      Compassionate conservatives

                      Compassionate conservatives do exist and many of them have been up in arms about the thrust of Romney's 47% remark – an "imperious canard", as the American Conservative described it.

                      These are otherwise reliable Republican voters, including some Christians and evangelicals, who may find themselves less likely to support or even vote for a GOP presidential ticket headed by Romney.

                      What defence there has been of Romney's remarks has claimed, without evidence, that those in the 47% don't necessarily define themselves as such. That has to be true to a point – who wants to agree that they are pathetic victims? – but here Mitt Romney has done the job for them: he has told them that they are victims, that they are feckless, and furthermore that he does not care for them. Romney has, in short, labelled them with a badge of shame.

                      Rusty Reno, editor of First Things – the conservative religious journal founded by Richard John Neuhaus – dismantled Romney's "absurd" remarks with a quiet ferocity. Sketching out the life of a family of a man earning $12 an hour in Omaha, Nebraska, Reno numbered the entitlements a family of modest means required "for their survival, to say nothing of any opportunity to advance".

                      The modern welfare and entitlement state is a mess, he concluded: "But it's historically, intellectually, and morally stultifying to imagine that this mess is somehow unnecessary, that it is the result of the laziness or irresponsibility of working people and the wicked plots of collectivist liberals."

                      Writing in the American Conservative, Rod Drier commented on Reno's criticism: "I thought I was the only theocon Romney had lost, or just about lost, with his 47% talk. Guess not." Drier described Romney's remarks as "conservatism of the heartless," and that they may have revived economics "as a pressing moral concern for religious conservatives".

                      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/rich...gaffe-by-gaffe

                      Comment


                      • Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

                        Will EJ endorse Obama this time around too? Are we still HOPING for some CHANGE, even though we're in Bush's third term?

                        Comment


                        • Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

                          You cannot fault EJ for choosing Obama. EJ is a pragmatic fellow. There were only two choices with Obama being the lesser of two evils that offered the most potential for non-negative change. I have never supported Obama. I did not like him in 2008 and I do not like him now, but I also recognize that in both circumstances, he offers the 'best' choice. Of course, that's like asking a person to choose their poison.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

                            Originally posted by don View Post
                            Solitaire gaming: Swing States 2012

                            “The word politics comes from the Greek ‘poly,’ meaning many, and the English ‘ticks,’ which are blood-sucking insects.” – James Carville[B]
                            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zooxuUnwY-I

                            Comment


                            • Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

                              Originally posted by BadJuju View Post
                              You cannot fault EJ for choosing Obama. EJ is a pragmatic fellow. There were only two choices with Obama being the lesser of two evils that offered the most potential for non-negative change. I have never supported Obama. I did not like him in 2008 and I do not like him now, but I also recognize that in both circumstances, he offers the 'best' choice. Of course, that's like asking a person to choose their poison.
                              I have done a lot of thinking on this two-party system and I have come to a conclusion that most certainly allows me to fault EJ for choosing Obama. The Ross Perot experience taught the wrong lessons to Americans at large. Voter turnout wasn't outside the norms in that election, and that is critical. The way to get better candidates for office is to make those candidates viable choices--and that means endorsing third party options. Nearly 38% of the electorate didn't vote at all in 2008; they had essentially no incentives to waste their time at the polls. And that was a historic low! It is often over 40% of the voting-eligible population that doesn't even make their voices heard. In every election, there are more people who do not vote than those who vote for a given candidate. A minority of people decide the most important offices in the government!

                              That's where influential people such as EJ can make some impact. One question lingers with inadequate answers: why do people who are eligible to vote choose not to? If we focus on the incentives of the nonvoting and give them a reason to choose, we can potentially at least have a third viable choice. Even if that ends up being a third side of the same party, that still improves the "pragmatic least bad" calculus used so often to justify voting for Democrats or Republicans. The "least bad" of three choices has a statistically higher chance of being better than the "least bad" of two choices. Maybe then such a decision calculus could be justified, but right now we have, as a Keynesian would say, idle capital that needs to be put to use.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

                                Chris Hedges…

                                We have undergone a corporate coup d’etat. And the center of power, as Occupy Wall Street aptly demonstrated is Wall Street not Washington. These are political puppets. They are the masks, the faces for corporate power. And Obama was an especially effective face or mask…He knows where the centers of power lie. He serves those centers of power, otherwise he wouldn’t be in office.

                                The end of American Democracy I would argue is the 2010 Citizens United Ruling and whatever Obama’s past, whatever Romney’s past, is not particularly relevant because internally it’s corporate lobbyists who write our laws, who write our legislation, and who control most of the airwaves. Roughly a half dozen corporations Viacom, General Electric, Rupert Murdoch’s Newscorp control what most Americans watch or hear. And so to channel energy into the personal narratives which of course is exactly what Dinesh is doing, ignores the fact that in relative terms a figure like Obama is largely powerless unless he serves those real centers of power which are corporate….

                                I did not vote for Obama in 2008, I voted for Nader and wrote several of Ralph’s major policy speeches and will not vote for Obama in this election, not least of which is because I just sued him in federal court. And unfortunately the appellate court last night issued a stay on Judge Forest’s ruling of a permanent junction on the section 10:21 on the NDAA, which means it’s now law again until they review it. Yea it’s really heartbreaking. Because you know because Sheldon Wolen nailed it in his book Democracy Incorporated that we live in a system of what he calls inverted totalitarianism. And we’ve got to push back against those corporate forces, even if it’s a kind of protest vote which I intend to do.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X