Barack Obama & The Referendum On Turning America Back From The Dark Side
There are those, I know, who will say that the liberation of humanity, the freedom of man and mind, is nothing but a dream. They are right. It is the American dream. — ARCHIBALD MacLEISH
In exactly nine weeks, America will go to the polls in the most important election of my lifetime and, I daresay, for anyone who wasn’t old enough to vote for Franklin Roosevelt or Herbert Hoover in 1932.
Why is it the most important? Because even before factoring in the excesses, amorality and criminality of the last eight years, America already was in the kind of deep doo-doo that not even 1932 can compare to:
Well before the coming of George Walker Bush, the disparity between the rich and poor was accelerating. Middle class families were having a harder time balancing their checkbooks. Millions of people had no access to affordable health care, let alone the insurance to help pay for it. There was an over-reliance on fossil fuels and indifference to alternative energy resources. The infrastructure was crumbling. And there was great confusion about the role the remaining superpower should play on the world stage.
These crises, well underway as the new millennium dawned, cannot be blamed on the Clinton administration alone or for that matter any other administration of recent vintage. Some of the problems were beyond the control of whomever occupied the Oval Office. Indeed, some cried out for solutions that no party or politician could provide.
* * * * *
The dread that I felt that night in Philadelphia in August 2000 as Bush gnawed his way through his acceptance speech was palpable. This was because I knew that he was an empty vessel — a resumé without a man — into which rabid conservatives would pour their animosities and causes.
That some eight years later Bush has not fulfilled a single promise made in his acceptance speech seems besides the point. That he, nor any other president, could have done little to stanch certain long-term economic and social trends let alone prevent a hurricane by the name of Katrina from ravaging the Gulf Coast is beside the point.
The point is that what this president was able to control, be it responding to a humanitarian crisis, checking the excesses on Wall Street that were visiting miseries on Main Street not seen since the Great Depression, or embarking on initiatives to help calm the world’s hot spots, were well beyond his interest or capabilities. In fact, he was utterly out of his depth if he wasn’t tethered to the reliably evil Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and the lesser Machiavellis surrounding him.
It is Bush’s abject failure to lead following the events of September 11 that will be his legacy writ large.
How extraordinary that he took a presidential approval rating the likes of which had not be seen since Pearl Harbor attack and drop-kicked it all the way to Iraq while getting in a succession of sucker punches to the solar plexus of the balance of powers, the rule of law and international treaties and conventions to which the U.S. had been a charter signatory. Not in the service of fighting the Global War on Terror, the convenient cover story, but the very kind of imperial power grab that the Founding Fathers feared.
The result has been an ear-popping descent to the point where Bush’s dis-approval rating threatened to eclipse that of a late 20th century president who at least had the sense to resign.
It is hard to believe that this time a year ago, I was considering voting for John McCain.
This is because I understood that getting beyond the Age of Bush, let alone trying to rebound from its excesses, was not simply a matter of partisan politics. It was a matter of leadership, and in the distant past of September 2007 it seemed to me that the man from Arizona was made of sturdier stuff than a certain former First Lady.
Enter Barack Obama and a political ascendancy that is as improbable as this election is important.
If you are in the thrall of the media noise machine, then you may believe that Obama has raised more questions about his ability to lead America out of that morass than he has answered.
I do agree that few potential presidents during my lifetime have seemed more like a work in process, although not the empty vessel that George Bush was and remains. But Obama should be well known at this juncture: A hugely-charismatic man who has cleverly-marketed the politics of change but has a bare-knuckled pragmatism evident in his selection of Joe Biden.
Contrast the Biden pick with Sarah Palin, a lightweight so devoid of experience that she makes Richard Nixon’s anointment of a corrupt, third-rate governor and county executive by the name of Spiro Agnew seem inspired. And what further confirmation is needed about how addled and impulsive McCain is?
Taking a chance on Barack Obama is not really much of a gamble because he has made the hoary concept of governance a centerpiece of his campaign and will surround himself with the best and brightest; even Republicans.
Then there is the deeply-cynical John McCain, who not only is running a shameful campaign reminiscent of Bush-Cheney 2000 and 2004, but would take us even deeper into that morass of fear and thuggery not merely because of his failure to break with it but because of his obeisance to the very people who have taken America to the dark side.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
116 Responses to “Barack Obama & The Referendum On Turning America Back From The Dark Side”
VWCAT.
It is hard to argue that Clinton did much for the economy considering he had a Republican Congress for his last six years. The best argument from the Clinton years is that divided government is good government in that it limits the expansion of government and stops new programs. It also means that the rules stay the same for longer. The Clinton Administration went six years without a tax increase. I doubt if the Obama Administration will be the same.
Also, how many times to I have to call McCain an idiot so that you will stop consider me a partisan.
The major problem has never been mentioned by either party is the militarism of the US. The fact is that both parties would rather use the military than diplomacy. The fact that bush always has his picture taken surrounded by uniformed military speaks volumes. The fact that the US has a standing professional Military, something the founders would deplore. This fact has escaped the MSM, Gen Abrams reorganized the new all vol.(professional) military back in 1973 when the draft ended to give the guard/reserve 40% of the missions that had been carried out by the active duty military. This was done to give the military more control over their civilian bosses proclivity to start wars. Since the advent of the american professional army we have used them more times than we did between the 1860 and 1973. The professional military contains 1% of the US population. Currently it is 49% African American, and at least 30% hispanic. The vast majority of minorities are in the enlisted ranks. Most-not all, but most-of the current officer class come from children of current officers and young people whose families have a long history of serving. The sons and daughters of the rich and powerful do not consider the military as a career any more. Like dick cheney, they have “Better things to do.” The next step in a militaristic society is a police state that crushes dissent. So, do not be surprised when the police arrest protesters in St Paul before they can even protest.
The major problem has never been mentioned by either party is the militarism of the US. The fact is that both parties would rather use the military than diplomacy. The fact that bush always has his picture taken surrounded by uniformed military speaks volumes. The fact that the US has a standing professional Military, something the founders would deplore. This fact has escaped the MSM, Gen Abrams reorganized the new all vol.(professional) military back in 1973 when the draft ended to give the guard/reserve 40% of the missions that had been carried out by the active duty military. This was done to give the military more control over their civilian bosses proclivity to start wars. Since the advent of the american professional army we have used them more times than we did between the 1860 and 1973. The professional military contains 1% of the US population. Currently it is 49% African American, and at least 30% hispanic. The vast majority of minorities are in the enlisted ranks. Most-not all, but most-of the current officer class come from children of current officers and young people whose families have a long history of serving. The sons and daughters of the rich and powerful do not consider the military as a career any more. Like dick cheney, they have “Better things to do.” The next step in a militaristic society is a police state that crushes dissent. So, do not be surprised when the police arrest protesters in St Paul before they can even protest.
The major problem has never been mentioned by either party is the militarism of the US. The fact is that both parties would rather use the military than diplomacy. The fact that bush always has his picture taken surrounded by uniformed military speaks volumes. The fact that the US has a standing professional Military, something the founders would deplore. This fact has escaped the MSM, Gen Abrams reorganized the new all vol.(professional) military back in 1973 when the draft ended to give the guard/reserve 40% of the missions that had been carried out by the active duty military. This was done to give the military more control over their civilian bosses proclivity to start wars. Since the advent of the american professional army we have used them more times than we did between the 1860 and 1973. The professional military contains 1% of the US population. Currently it is 49% African American, and at least 30% hispanic. The vast majority of minorities are in the enlisted ranks. Most-not all, but most-of the current officer class come from children of current officers and young people whose families have a long history of serving. The sons and daughters of the rich and powerful do not consider the military as a career any more. Like dick cheney, they have “Better things to do.” The next step in a militaristic society is a police state that crushes dissent. So, do not be surprised when the police arrest protesters in St Paul before they can even protest.
The major problem has never been mentioned by either party is the militarism of the US. The fact is that both parties would rather use the military than diplomacy. The fact that bush always has his picture taken surrounded by uniformed military speaks volumes. The fact that the US has a standing professional Military, something the founders would deplore. This fact has escaped the MSM, Gen Abrams reorganized the new all vol.(professional) military back in 1973 when the draft ended to give the guard/reserve 40% of the missions that had been carried out by the active duty military. This was done to give the military more control over their civilian bosses proclivity to start wars. Since the advent of the american professional army we have used them more times than we did between the 1860 and 1973. The professional military contains 1% of the US population. Currently it is 49% African American, and at least 30% hispanic. The vast majority of minorities are in the enlisted ranks. Most-not all, but most-of the current officer class come from children of current officers and young people whose families have a long history of serving. The sons and daughters of the rich and powerful do not consider the military as a career any more. Like dick cheney, they have “Better things to do.” The next step in a militaristic society is a police state that crushes dissent. So, do not be surprised when the police arrest protesters in St Paul before they can even protest.
The major problem has never been mentioned by either party is the militarism of the US. The fact is that both parties would rather use the military than diplomacy. The fact that bush always has his picture taken surrounded by uniformed military speaks volumes. The fact that the US has a standing professional Military, something the founders would deplore. This fact has escaped the MSM, Gen Abrams reorganized the new all vol.(professional) military back in 1973 when the draft ended to give the guard/reserve 40% of the missions that had been carried out by the active duty military. This was done to give the military more control over their civilian bosses proclivity to start wars. Since the advent of the american professional army we have used them more times than we did between the 1860 and 1973. The professional military contains 1% of the US population. Currently it is 49% African American, and at least 30% hispanic. The vast majority of minorities are in the enlisted ranks. Most-not all, but most-of the current officer class come from children of current officers and young people whose families have a long history of serving. The sons and daughters of the rich and powerful do not consider the military as a career any more. Like dick cheney, they have “Better things to do.” The next step in a militaristic society is a police state that crushes dissent. So, do not be surprised when the police arrest protesters in St Paul before they can even protest.
The major problem has never been mentioned by either party is the militarism of the US. The fact is that both parties would rather use the military than diplomacy. The fact that bush always has his picture taken surrounded by uniformed military speaks volumes. The fact that the US has a standing professional Military, something the founders would deplore. This fact has escaped the MSM, Gen Abrams reorganized the new all vol.(professional) military back in 1973 when the draft ended to give the guard/reserve 40% of the missions that had been carried out by the active duty military. This was done to give the military more control over their civilian bosses proclivity to start wars. Since the advent of the american professional army we have used them more times than we did between the 1860 and 1973. The professional military contains 1% of the US population. Currently it is 49% African American, and at least 30% hispanic. The vast majority of minorities are in the enlisted ranks. Most-not all, but most-of the current officer class come from children of current officers and young people whose families have a long history of serving. The sons and daughters of the rich and powerful do not consider the military as a career any more. Like dick cheney, they have “Better things to do.” The next step in a militaristic society is a police state that crushes dissent. So, do not be surprised when the police arrest protesters in St Paul before they can even protest.
Yes I would argue the numbers now are as bad as they were in the 70s. They changed how they calculated both inflation and unemployment. If you use the old metric we are near 10% in both right now. There is a lot of argument whether the new way or the old way is more reflective of “reality” but apples to apples comparison things are very similar.
This suppossedly constructs the data using the old metrics. I've read several critiques that say it is overstating things in most cases by 2-4%. (So they say 14% unemployment while most of the economists would say 10%, which is also in line with the broadest measure that the government releases).
And CPI would be around 14%, but most of the people say that it used to be very stupid and unrealistic and so rebalancing it was wise…..but if you took out “hedonics” (which most of the time they don't even make sense) then around 10% is accurate.
So yes I would argue that the actual numbers are relatively the same, and furthermore look at wage increases and they are much much lower.
Yes I would argue the numbers now are as bad as they were in the 70s. They changed how they calculated both inflation and unemployment. If you use the old metric we are near 10% in both right now. There is a lot of argument whether the new way or the old way is more reflective of “reality” but apples to apples comparison things are very similar.
This suppossedly constructs the data using the old metrics. I've read several critiques that say it is overstating things in most cases by 2-4%. (So they say 14% unemployment while most of the economists would say 10%, which is also in line with the broadest measure that the government releases).
And CPI would be around 14%, but most of the people say that it used to be very stupid and unrealistic and so rebalancing it was wise…..but if you took out “hedonics” (which most of the time they don't even make sense) then around 10% is accurate.
So yes I would argue that the actual numbers are relatively the same, and furthermore look at wage increases and they are much much lower.
Yes I would argue the numbers now are as bad as they were in the 70s. They changed how they calculated both inflation and unemployment. If you use the old metric we are near 10% in both right now. There is a lot of argument whether the new way or the old way is more reflective of “reality” but apples to apples comparison things are very similar.
This suppossedly constructs the data using the old metrics. I've read several critiques that say it is overstating things in most cases by 2-4%. (So they say 14% unemployment while most of the economists would say 10%, which is also in line with the broadest measure that the government releases).
And CPI would be around 14%, but most of the people say that it used to be very stupid and unrealistic and so rebalancing it was wise…..but if you took out “hedonics” (which most of the time they don't even make sense) then around 10% is accurate.
So yes I would argue that the actual numbers are relatively the same, and furthermore look at wage increases and they are much much lower.
Yes I would argue the numbers now are as bad as they were in the 70s. They changed how they calculated both inflation and unemployment. If you use the old metric we are near 10% in both right now. There is a lot of argument whether the new way or the old way is more reflective of “reality” but apples to apples comparison things are very similar.
This suppossedly constructs the data using the old metrics. I've read several critiques that say it is overstating things in most cases by 2-4%. (So they say 14% unemployment while most of the economists would say 10%, which is also in line with the broadest measure that the government releases).
And CPI would be around 14%, but most of the people say that it used to be very stupid and unrealistic and so rebalancing it was wise…..but if you took out “hedonics” (which most of the time they don't even make sense) then around 10% is accurate.
So yes I would argue that the actual numbers are relatively the same, and furthermore look at wage increases and they are much much lower.
Yes I would argue the numbers now are as bad as they were in the 70s. They changed how they calculated both inflation and unemployment. If you use the old metric we are near 10% in both right now. There is a lot of argument whether the new way or the old way is more reflective of “reality” but apples to apples comparison things are very similar.
This suppossedly constructs the data using the old metrics. I've read several critiques that say it is overstating things in most cases by 2-4%. (So they say 14% unemployment while most of the economists would say 10%, which is also in line with the broadest measure that the government releases).
And CPI would be around 14%, but most of the people say that it used to be very stupid and unrealistic and so rebalancing it was wise…..but if you took out “hedonics” (which most of the time they don't even make sense) then around 10% is accurate.
So yes I would argue that the actual numbers are relatively the same, and furthermore look at wage increases and they are much much lower.
Yes I would argue the numbers now are as bad as they were in the 70s. They changed how they calculated both inflation and unemployment. If you use the old metric we are near 10% in both right now. There is a lot of argument whether the new way or the old way is more reflective of “reality” but apples to apples comparison things are very similar.
This suppossedly constructs the data using the old metrics. I've read several critiques that say it is overstating things in most cases by 2-4%. (So they say 14% unemployment while most of the economists would say 10%, which is also in line with the broadest measure that the government releases).
And CPI would be around 14%, but most of the people say that it used to be very stupid and unrealistic and so rebalancing it was wise…..but if you took out “hedonics” (which most of the time they don't even make sense) then around 10% is accurate.
So yes I would argue that the actual numbers are relatively the same, and furthermore look at wage increases and they are much much lower.
The gas lines and inflation happened due in part to an OPEC embargo, not our consumption after 911 that W pushed. To the partisans on the other side, once again where is the DJA after Bush 43. I'd guess the increase is about as bad as a bank savings interest rate.
The gas lines and inflation happened due in part to an OPEC embargo, not our consumption after 911 that W pushed. To the partisans on the other side, once again where is the DJA after Bush 43. I'd guess the increase is about as bad as a bank savings interest rate.
The gas lines and inflation happened due in part to an OPEC embargo, not our consumption after 911 that W pushed. To the partisans on the other side, once again where is the DJA after Bush 43. I'd guess the increase is about as bad as a bank savings interest rate.
The gas lines and inflation happened due in part to an OPEC embargo, not our consumption after 911 that W pushed. To the partisans on the other side, once again where is the DJA after Bush 43. I'd guess the increase is about as bad as a bank savings interest rate.
The gas lines and inflation happened due in part to an OPEC embargo, not our consumption after 911 that W pushed. To the partisans on the other side, once again where is the DJA after Bush 43. I'd guess the increase is about as bad as a bank savings interest rate.
The gas lines and inflation happened due in part to an OPEC embargo, not our consumption after 911 that W pushed. To the partisans on the other side, once again where is the DJA after Bush 43. I'd guess the increase is about as bad as a bank savings interest rate.
tmir,
The military is less than 1/4 blacks with the Navy, Air Force, and Marine
Corps being less than 10% blacks. In addition, the number of minorities in the military has been going down since 2002.
The U.S. Army has involved in low intensity war with the Indians from 1870 to 1890. You should also look up gun boat diplomacy as followed by Roosevelt and wilson.
.
tmir,
The military is less than 1/4 blacks with the Navy, Air Force, and Marine
Corps being less than 10% blacks. In addition, the number of minorities in the military has been going down since 2002.
The U.S. Army has involved in low intensity war with the Indians from 1870 to 1890. You should also look up gun boat diplomacy as followed by Roosevelt and wilson.
.
tmir,
The military is less than 1/4 blacks with the Navy, Air Force, and Marine
Corps being less than 10% blacks. In addition, the number of minorities in the military has been going down since 2002.
The U.S. Army has involved in low intensity war with the Indians from 1870 to 1890. You should also look up gun boat diplomacy as followed by Roosevelt and wilson.
.
tmir,
The military is less than 1/4 blacks with the Navy, Air Force, and Marine
Corps being less than 10% blacks. In addition, the number of minorities in the military has been going down since 2002.
The U.S. Army has involved in low intensity war with the Indians from 1870 to 1890. You should also look up gun boat diplomacy as followed by Roosevelt and wilson.
.
tmir,
The military is less than 1/4 blacks with the Navy, Air Force, and Marine
Corps being less than 10% blacks. In addition, the number of minorities in the military has been going down since 2002.
The U.S. Army has involved in low intensity war with the Indians from 1870 to 1890. You should also look up gun boat diplomacy as followed by Roosevelt and wilson.
.
tmir,
The military is less than 1/4 blacks with the Navy, Air Force, and Marine
Corps being less than 10% blacks. In addition, the number of minorities in the military has been going down since 2002.
The U.S. Army has involved in low intensity war with the Indians from 1870 to 1890. You should also look up gun boat diplomacy as followed by Roosevelt and wilson.
.
tmir,
The military is less than 1/4 blacks with the Navy, Air Force, and Marine
Corps being less than 10% blacks. In addition, the number of minorities in the military has been going down since 2002.
The U.S. Army has involved in low intensity war with the Indians from 1870 to 1890. You should also look up gun boat diplomacy as followed by Roosevelt and wilson.
.
AR, my comment was made while news was still unfolding. As usual there are two sides to that story, and both sides have legitimate concerns. As for the rest of your comment: The USA has a long proud history of civil disobedience going all the way back to our independence. I'm sure you're aware of this, no? That said, I believe in peaceful protest, and yet all it takes is a small contingent of nuts to turn any peaceful protest into something the MSM will paint with a broad brush. Some people are actually troubled about those who are dealt with by police in a way that ignores constitutional rights. That should be a concern of everyone (including the MSM) – independent of party or ideology.
AR, my comment was made while news was still unfolding. As usual there are two sides to that story, and both sides have legitimate concerns. As for the rest of your comment: The USA has a long proud history of civil disobedience going all the way back to our independence. I'm sure you're aware of this, no? That said, I believe in peaceful protest, and yet all it takes is a small contingent of nuts to turn any peaceful protest into something the MSM will paint with a broad brush. Some people are actually troubled about those who are dealt with by police in a way that ignores constitutional rights. That should be a concern of everyone (including the MSM) – independent of party or ideology.
AR, my comment was made while news was still unfolding. As usual there are two sides to that story, and both sides have legitimate concerns. As for the rest of your comment: The USA has a long proud history of civil disobedience going all the way back to our independence. I'm sure you're aware of this, no? That said, I believe in peaceful protest, and yet all it takes is a small contingent of nuts to turn any peaceful protest into something the MSM will paint with a broad brush. Some people are actually troubled about those who are dealt with by police in a way that ignores constitutional rights. That should be a concern of everyone (including the MSM) – independent of party or ideology.
AR, my comment was made while news was still unfolding. As usual there are two sides to that story, and both sides have legitimate concerns. As for the rest of your comment: The USA has a long proud history of civil disobedience going all the way back to our independence. I'm sure you're aware of this, no? That said, I believe in peaceful protest, and yet all it takes is a small contingent of nuts to turn any peaceful protest into something the MSM will paint with a broad brush. Some people are actually troubled about those who are dealt with by police in a way that ignores constitutional rights. That should be a concern of everyone (including the MSM) – independent of party or ideology.
AR, my comment was made while news was still unfolding. As usual there are two sides to that story, and both sides have legitimate concerns. As for the rest of your comment: The USA has a long proud history of civil disobedience going all the way back to our independence. I'm sure you're aware of this, no? That said, I believe in peaceful protest, and yet all it takes is a small contingent of nuts to turn any peaceful protest into something the MSM will paint with a broad brush. Some people are actually troubled about those who are dealt with by police in a way that ignores constitutional rights. That should be a concern of everyone (including the MSM) – independent of party or ideology.
AR, my comment was made while news was still unfolding. As usual there are two sides to that story, and both sides have legitimate concerns. As for the rest of your comment: The USA has a long proud history of civil disobedience going all the way back to our independence. I'm sure you're aware of this, no? That said, I believe in peaceful protest, and yet all it takes is a small contingent of nuts to turn any peaceful protest into something the MSM will paint with a broad brush. Some people are actually troubled about those who are dealt with by police in a way that ignores constitutional rights. That should be a concern of everyone (including the MSM) – independent of party or ideology.
AR, my comment was made while news was still unfolding. As usual there are two sides to that story, and both sides have legitimate concerns. As for the rest of your comment: The USA has a long proud history of civil disobedience going all the way back to our independence. I'm sure you're aware of this, no? That said, I believe in peaceful protest, and yet all it takes is a small contingent of nuts to turn any peaceful protest into something the MSM will paint with a broad brush. Some people are actually troubled about those who are dealt with by police in a way that ignores constitutional rights. That should be a concern of everyone (including the MSM) – independent of party or ideology.
It's the Left who has been the Dark Side and reactionary as well as resentful since Reagan was elected in 1980.
It's the Left who has been the Dark Side and reactionary as well as resentful since Reagan was elected in 1980.
It's the Left who has been the Dark Side and reactionary as well as resentful since Reagan was elected in 1980.
It's the Left who has been the Dark Side and reactionary as well as resentful since Reagan was elected in 1980.
It's the Left who has been the Dark Side and reactionary as well as resentful since Reagan was elected in 1980.
It's the Left who has been the Dark Side and reactionary as well as resentful since Reagan was elected in 1980.
It's the Left who has been the Dark Side and reactionary as well as resentful since Reagan was elected in 1980.
It's the Left who has been the Dark Side and reactionary as well as resentful since Reagan was elected in 1980.
What are you, like 12 years old?
What are you, like 12 years old?
What are you, like 12 years old?
What are you, like 12 years old?
What are you, like 12 years old?
What are you, like 12 years old?
What are you, like 12 years old?
What are you, like 12 years old?
jspencer – OK, keep the comments to the cops in both locations acting like goons, and don't make it a 'look at the bad Republican's at their convention', and I agree wholeheartedly with you.
As for civil disobedience, I was making the point of the irony of the 'left -peace' protesters seeming to be much more violent, as a whole, than the 'right' protesters, not objecting to civil disobedience in general. You would be surprised how much I support that, and in the distance past here at TMV, posted extensively on the concept.
In short, I am a Jeffersonian in those matters.