Next: If you want a laugh, read "Voting, not OWS, will change America" by a die-hard Obot named Frank Viviano. I happen to agree with the headline, as far as it goes. The laffs come when we read things like the following:
It makes no sense to argue that the Democratic voting collapse was a matter of demoralization. Decisions on whether to go to the polls were made by the early autumn of 2010, just 20 months into an Obama administration that had pushed through what many analysts regard as the most ambitious legislative agenda in modern U.S. history.
As much as anything else, Barack Obama’s ascent to the presidency was about the slow work of acquiring power and responsibility in the machinery of representative government.The reason liberals stayed home in 2010 was simple: Obama failed. His failure soiled the Democratic name brand, and it even -- stupidly -- turned a lot of people off from electoral politics altogether. (I say "stupidly" because the alternative to electoral politics is usually much worse. Anyone who suggests otherwise should read a fucking book.)
Obama kept the wars going, he protected the bankers, he protected the Bush era criminals, he backstabbed us on free trade, he held off on new financial regulations until too late (and the ones he eventually proposed were inadequate), and he backstabbed us on privacy issues. Worst of all, he blew a rare chance to effect a radical reform of the economy.
Do you know that for less than $1.5 trillion dollars -- much less than it cost to keep the big banks afloat -- the government could have purchased every iffy home loan in America?
Obama isn't your friend either. Some of us have spent the past few years pleading with liberals not to give up on the idea of electoral politics, but Obama's failure made that argument a hard sell. And that is why 2010 went down the way it did.
5 comments:
Obama didnt fail.
He didnt try. Classic bait and switch. Vote for me cos I represent your interests. Then he screws you over for the big banks and money-ed classes. Thats why people didnt go to the polls. They knew they had been done. And more people are getting it all the time. Obamas big hope is that he gets new moderates to replace all those black people and "progressives" who now see that they were conned. I dont think there are enough stupid moderates left in America to make this a viable strategy. His only hope is that the Republican candidate is hopelessly flawed. Sadly, thats looks like the most likely outcome. I know I shouldnt wish for a Republican victory, but I am so disgusted by the fraud that I dont want him rewarded like that total fraud Blair. If these people are not punished they will multiply. Against that is the risk that the US decends into fascism. What choices!
Harry
You're right, Harry. I'm just hoping that the GOPers will produce a candidate who is not completely batshit insane. Romney or Huntsman with a strong (meaning real) Democratic Congress might work ok. We've surely seen what doesn't work.
Totally agree. And I also agree that the evolution of Democratic politics, just like the evolution of GOP politics, is designed to turn off moderates/the mainstream and leave the process in the hands of a few elites and the easily manipulated. People cannot let others turn them off to the process. Before we had democracy, we had murderous kings, and before that murderous popes (in the West at least). Unless people want to return to something like that, they must keep participating.
Hey Joe, your brilliant Babs-Crowleyian research of a while back has born ripe fruit, regarding the Obamination-in-Chief.
Check it out:
http://is-obama-a-rothschild.blogspot.com/2011/09/is-barack-obama-rothschild.html#comments
Obama is not a Rothschild, and Barack Sr. was not related to Teddy Roosevelt. I told you last April 1 that the parents of our current president were Alger Hiss and the daughter of Wallace Ford, mysterious founder of the Nation of Islam.
Post a Comment