a refreshing look at Obama

[Ben]

A not so refreshing look at Obama by authoress Naomi Wolf.... As she points out: Obama is continuing Bush policies.
I mean, as Chris Hedges has pointed out: it makes no difference who you vote for.
Romney might be slightly better. Who knows. Or worse. Who knows.
But the absolute system and structure won't change... unless there is a widespread popular movement. Oh, we had it: Occupy Wall Street.
Still don't know what that was all about.... Or what they really wanted.
I guess they wanna be part of the managerial class and serve the top 1 percent -- ha ha ha!
But Naomi Wolf, again, is correct in the sense that Obama is carrying out the same policies as Bush. Who carried on the same policies as Clinton. In the sense of letting Wall Street run wild. It was Clinton who deregulated Wall Street. One can't blame Reagan for that.
Anyway, the silly charade of politics goes on and on --

[Ben]

[Prospero]

This is akin to the sort of 1960s naivete that proclaimed "politics is pigshit"... so don't vote. Just look at what the Republicans in office have done over the past 25 or 30 years. Really look and you'll see why it matters.

[Stavros]

A not so refreshing look at Obama by authoress Naomi Wolf.... As she points out: Obama is continuing Bush policies.
I mean, as Chris Hedges has pointed out: it makes no difference who you vote for.

Anyway, the silly charade of politics goes on and on --

Ben these days its ok to call a woman who writes books an author...

Your cynical dismissal of politics is baffling -given the economic mess that Obama inherited from President Bush, are you really saying that the various packges that were put together to save the banking system from further erosion, that were designed to stimulate the economy, and the Affordable Health Care for America Act were merely 'business as usual' and a continuation of the policies of the previous Republican administration? If you are not interested in policy, then say so, but then ask yourself what it is that people, be they in or out of the Occupy movements are discussing when they discuss taxes. What passes for your critique of the power of the state in the US is wholly valid, but in the absence of a revolutionary movement -and the closest thing to it that you have is the Tea Party- you are stuck with the system you have -why not enter it in an attempt to improve it, even if only at the margins?

[Prospero]

Your cynical dismissal of politics is baffling -given the economic mess that Obama inherited from President Bush, are you really saying that the various packges that were put together to save the banking system from further erosion, that were designed to stimulate the economy, and the Affordable Health Care for America Act were merely 'business as usual' and a continuation of the policies of the previous Republican administration? If you are not interested in policy, then say so, but then ask yourself what it is that people, be they in or out of the Occupy movements are discussing when they discuss taxes. What passes for your critique of the power of the state in the US is wholly valid, but in the absence of a revolutionary movement -and the closest thing to it that you have is the Tea Party- you are stuck with the system you have -why not enter it in an attempt to improve it, even if only at the margins?

[broncofan]

I understand that on certain issues there may not be enough different choices offered by the present political parties. But I never did understand those who say they don't see the difference between the policies of the Republican and Democratic parties. Yes, they are both beholden to some special interest groups and so the political process is occasionally corrupted.

But with respect to taxation and our budget the differences are enormous. The process was designed to balance a lot of those differences out so neither party gets free rein, but if you think about what either party would propose in the absence of necessary political compromise, the differences are stark. Health care, disability, education, fiscal policy (supply side v. neo-keynesian), monetary policy, campaign finance reform (some similarity here due to those pernicious political pressures), but a great deal of divergence. We can look at social policies. Gay marriage, civil rights legislation, abortion rights, administrative law. It's just that the way our system has been set up prevents us from getting our way too easily, so change is incremental. We can see which way the tide is going on several issues, including gay rights, health care, and civil rights generally. It will just be a while before the norms shift further to the left and the reactionary forces in this country become more and more nostalgic.

[broncofan]

This is akin to the sort of 1960s naivete that proclaimed "politics is pigshit"... so don't vote. Just look at what the Republicans in office have done over the past 25 or 30 years. Really look and you'll see why it matters.

I was reading a case last year that involved the department of transportation during the Reagan years. Under the law they had the mandate to ensure public safety by enacting regulations that protect motorists. The Reagan appointees were considering a proposal that would have required car companies to either mandate those automatic seatbelts that fold across your body as soon as you sit down or airbags. The data they had demonstrated that either increasing the use of seatbelts with such devices or mandating airbags would likely save thousands of lives a year.

The appointees to the department focused on the phrase economically feasible or something similar to justify adopting neither mandate. In other words, those who were appointed to ensure safety and regulate the market were arguing that neither policy was economically feasible and that the market should win out. I can't remember the case holding, but I believe the court said that though agencies should not have their substantive rulemaking micromanaged by judges, they have to at least demonstrate that their decision is not arbitrary and capricious. Or perhaps, under the arbitrary and capricious standard the court allowed them to commit this injustice. I just remember the attempt, and of course am pretty sure they eventually failed.

Anyhow, I didn't mean to be long-winded but in this attempt we can see the immorality of their attempts at regulatory sabotage. The lives of thousands of people were not worth forcing car companies to do something they did not want to do, even though it was their legal mandate to regulate. I really don't believe Democrats have the same cavalier attitude when it comes to regulatory law. They have not been particularly effective when it comes to banking law but that's because the issue of how much regulation banks should be forced to submit to is actually complicated unlike whether car companies should install airbags.

[Erika1487]

Actually, Erica, as a former soldier for the GOP, I'd be interested on your take on the mud slinging going on right now. Personally, I love it. Democrats finally dishing shit back - at least at the Presidential/VP level. As a lib, I obviously want Obama. However, if he loses but goes down swinging, I'm all for that. I would like someone to put the GOP on notice that there are some Democratic candidates who just aren't going to take their 40 years of crap anymore.

Odelay I can attest for the fact that party leaders DID NOT want Mitt on the ticket, and from what I here from a few of my former co-workers the party leaders in the south are still worried even with Paul Ryan on the Vp ticket. Many of the party leaders are worried that a mormon on the ticket will drive southern baptists away from the polls.

[hippifried]

Many of the party leaders are worried that a mormon on the ticket will drive southern baptists away from the polls.

Won't they worry about the same thing with a Papist?

[Prospero]

Would they rather vote for a Mormon-Catholic team than a man many of those bright people still believe to be a Muslim?