The Two Conventions: Night & Day

We're only one night into the DNC and Michelle Obama on her own has already bested the entire RNC, not that the RNC put up much of a fight. The RNC had angry old men yelling at empty furniture, Chris Christie reciting Machiavelli, and Anne Romney pandering to women all amidst Ryan & Romney's deep deep dishonesty.

Patrick Deval, Julian Castro and Michelle all had great speeches that spoke to the American dream but the DNC could quit now on the power of Michelle's speech and get a huge bounce. It's just not fair, Democrats have far better speeches and far more popular policies. And of course there's none of the hateful divisive rhetoric that dominated the RNC, the Democrats offered a powerful and positive message that Americans are hungry for. The rats over at Fox News will be drinking heavily tonight.

Chris Wallace on Fox was kind of excited, I didn't stick around long enough to hear what Rove said....he he.

What could Obama do? Well, according to the economist Dean Baker: "President Obama can actually push a free trade agenda that would mean millions of new manufacturing jobs. For example, he could pursue a competitive dollar policy that will push the dollar down to levels where U.S. goods and services are better able to compete internationally. This would bring our trade deficit closer to balance.This would be both good economics and good politics since it would have huge appeal to the bulk of the population, although it would likely lose President Obama many big donors."
Therein lies the problem.... Obama needs to get cash from the big corporate sector. So, he has to appease them. And not, say, appease the majority of the American populace.
Obama can't put in place policies which the vast majority of Americans want. That's called democracy....
I mean, corporate titans actively work to undermine democratic structures.
So, they repeat the mantra: government is bad, we should have low taxes on "job creators" and on and on and on.
Certainly the business sector, the large business sector, is in favor of big government to serve their interests. And why wouldn't they be? It's perfectly rational.
They're certainly in favor of a large military budget because the bad guys are coming.
No. It means a mass transfer of public wealth to the private sector. Which is perfectly rational.
Don't critique business executives. They're simply out to serve their own interests. It's logical....
I mean, it would be ILLOGICAL if they didn't use government for their own interests.
An executive would be lacking in lucid conduct if he or she didn't take advantage of the massive government that we have....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BluegrassCat

We're only one night into the DNC and Michelle Obama on her own has already bested the entire RNC, not that the RNC put up much of a fight. The RNC had angry old men yelling at empty furniture, Chris Christie reciting Machiavelli, and Anne Romney pandering to women all amidst Ryan & Romney's deep deep dishonesty.

Patrick Deval, Julian Castro and Michelle all had great speeches that spoke to the American dream but the DNC could quit now on the power of Michelle's speech and get a huge bounce. It's just not fair, Democrats have far better speeches and far more popular policies. And of course there's none of the hateful divisive rhetoric that dominated the RNC, the Democrats offered a powerful and positive message that Americans are hungry for. The rats over at Fox News will be drinking heavily tonight.

---

Michelle Obama's full DNC speech - YouTube

Ron Paul ~ Democrats & Republicans are 'Pro War'! - YouTube

Obamobedience:

http://warisacrime.org/content/obamobedience

Man, Bubba dismantled the lies of Ryan and Romney. He talked policy in depth while always bringing it back to values. The crowd loved it. It was a much better speech than the one W. Bush gave at the RNC...oh wait, lol.

The wonderful whirling world of Obama and his drones:

Drone Wars and Surveillance - YouTube

What Dems don't talk about...

Who is held to account for deaths by drone in Yemen?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...=FBCNETTXT9038

Yeah, Palin is right: whatever happened to "hope" and "change" -- ha ha!

Sarah Palin: "How's That Hopey-Changey Stuff Working Out For Ya?" - YouTube

Elizabeth Warren correctly points out, in my estimation, that Republicans, the Party and not Republican supporters, believe in big government to help themselves and their powerful friends. And even Ron Paul believes that too.

Elizabeth Warren: Corporations Are Not People (Sorry Romney) - YouTube

Ron Paul destroying Santorum at the CNN Arizona GOP Republican Debate - Feb 22, 2012 - YouTube

Obama won't talk about drones

POLITICO...


By BYRON TAU 9/5/12 10:47 AM EDT


In an interview with a local Ohio TV station, President Obama refused to discuss any of his administration's targeted killing drone programs, citing national security reasons.
Asked by FOX19 reporter Ben Swann about targeting killings without trials — including the death of two American citizens — Obama refused to confirm or deny the program.
"First of all, you're basing this on reports in the news that have never been confirmed by me. And I don't talk about our national security decisions in that way," Obama said about the reporter's question.
"Our goal has been to focus on al-Qaeda, to focus narrowly on those who pose an eminent threat to the United States of America," Obama said.
But Obama's reticent to discuss the program is a bit at odds with previous administration efforts to bring more transparency to the program — which officials insist is carefully targeted, legal and justified.
The details of the drone program is all but an open secret now and the Obama administration itself has pledged more transparency about the program.
Obama himself acknowledged a Pakistani drone and targeted killing program in a January online chat, when he was asked about it. Administration officials denied that Obama slipped up in revealing the program.
A few months later, Obama's counterterrorism and homeland security adviser John Brennan delivered specific remarks laying out the scope, legality and ethics of the drone programs at the Woodrow Wilson center.
"Staying true to our values as a nation also includes upholding the transparency upon which our democracy depends," Brennan said.
Attorney General Eric Holder spoke in Chicago about the legal justification the administration used to kill al-Awlaki.
And many Obama administration officials cooperated with a long New York Times piece published in May on the program — a story that has become part of the charge that administration officials are selectively leaking secrets to reporters.

Here's the video:

Reality Check President Obama 1-on-1: How does he justify having a "kill list"?

http://www.fox19.com/story/19456470/...ng-a-kill-list

Reality Check: DNC Runs Over Delegates With Scripted Platform Vote - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BluegrassCat

We're only one night into the DNC and Michelle Obama on her own has already bested the entire RNC, not that the RNC put up much of a fight. The RNC had angry old men yelling at empty furniture, Chris Christie reciting Machiavelli, and Anne Romney pandering to women all amidst Ryan & Romney's deep deep dishonesty.

Patrick Deval, Julian Castro and Michelle all had great speeches that spoke to the American dream but the DNC could quit now on the power of Michelle's speech and get a huge bounce. It's just not fair, Democrats have far better speeches and far more popular policies. And of course there's none of the hateful divisive rhetoric that dominated the RNC, the Democrats offered a powerful and positive message that Americans are hungry for. The rats over at Fox News will be drinking heavily tonight.

---

Well, the difference between Dems and Republicans -- the so-called "political" parties -- is that the Republican Party serve the super-rich -- or 0.01 percent of the population and the Dems -- the Party, that is -- are rapidly moving in that direction.
American politics today is in a state that has no analog in American history.
I mean, Obama, granted, is somewhere in the real world.
But Obama won't do anything about global warming. Which is scary. Because he knows it's happening [he, again, does live somewhere in the real world] and poses dire consequences for future generations.
But politics doesn't work like that. I mean, he's focused on the next 4 years. Not 40. Not 50.
And being part of the structure, well, he has to serve corporate interests. He's totally beholden to Wall Street, big oil, big mining, big insurance... :)

Democratic Donors Withhold Funds Over Absence of Climate Change from Obama Campaign Message - YouTube

Corporate Dems Share GOP Wall St. Agenda - YouTube

Well geepers... I guess we should just blow off the election & choose who will be the most powerful person in the world via YouTube poll.

Democrats parade Osama bin Laden's corpse as their proudest achievement

It's one thing for Democrats to fete Obama's tougher-than-thou national security credentials, but this ghoulish jingoism is warped:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...n-laden-corpse

There are a ton of things I wish Obama would do but can't because they're not politically feasible. This is the world we live in. If we are going to continue to have what appears to be a two party system it is going to come down to who offers the better choices. None of the things Obama does wrong or fails to do would be fixed under a Republican administration.

Do titanic transnational corporations (meaning: corporations having no allegiance to any country) have utter control over our government? If so then they've essentially become our government. Which, in essence, means we've a private government.
So, if we've a private government, composed of banks, insurance and oil companies, well, how do we hold them accountable? I mean, we can't turf Rex Tillerson out of his job like we can Obama.
So, we've essentially a private government -- ha ha ha! Everything is comical. Especially corporate control.... Or: private government.

Corporations Own Politicians - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben

Well, the difference between Dems and Republicans -- the so-called "political" parties -- is that the Republican Party serve the super-rich -- or 0.01 percent of the population and the Dems -- the Party, that is -- are rapidly moving in that direction.
American politics today is in a state that has no analog in American history.
I mean, Obama, granted, is somewhere in the real world.
But Obama won't do anything about global warming. Which is scary. Because he knows it's happening [he, again, does live somewhere in the real world] and poses dire consequences for future generations.
But politics doesn't work like that. I mean, he's focused on the next 4 years. Not 40. Not 50.
And being part of the structure, well, he has to serve corporate interests. He's totally beholden to Wall Street, big oil, big mining, big insurance... :)

Democratic Donors Withhold Funds Over Absence of Climate Change from Obama Campaign Message - YouTube

Corporate Dems Share GOP Wall St. Agenda - YouTube

---

Ben, you're a good guy and at one level there's little to choose between the Dems and the GOP in terms of their craven approach to big money, BUT, and it's a big but, don't you think that the differences beyond that critical issue, especially in relation to social policy and outlook, are enormous? The libertarians are going nowhere. Ron Paul is going nowhere in terms of electoral reality. When it comes down to a straight choice please tell me you'll vote for Obama. Anything less and it's the dark ages for America, and in your heart of hearts you know that's the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

There are a ton of things I wish Obama would do but can't because they're not politically feasible. This is the world we live in. If we are going to continue to have what appears to be a two party system it is going to come down to who offers the better choices. None of the things Obama does wrong or fails to do would be fixed under a Republican administration.

---

Politically feasible. Exactly. Meaning: corporations don't want it. That's why we've a profound democratic deficit in this country. Meaning: the great gap between public opinion and public policy.
I mean, either we have a democracy or we don't.
Noam Chomsky sums it up well: "... maybe the public wants it, but that’s not what counts as political support. The financial institutions are opposed, the pharmaceutical institutions are opposed. (Corporations count. People don't.)
"This is [a] very revealing insight into how American democracy functions and what's meant by the term “political support” and “politically possible.”'
Ya know, Americans want a reduction in military spending. But they don't count.
Americans want higher taxes on the corporate sector. But they don't count. Americans want higher taxes on the rich. But they don't count.
What about handing the banks trillions of dollars? I don't really recall any democratic debate about that one -- ha ha ha!

Noam Chomsky - The Political system in the USA. - YouTube

Obamabots:

Obamabot Andy Kindler's Thoughts on Barack Obama's DNC Speech! - YouTube

Both so-called political parties (albeit it's one party: the business party) and they both support the war machine, as it were. They both support corporatism. They both serve a tiny sliver of the populace....

Joe Rogan - The American War Machine - YouTube

[QUOTE=Ben;1195315]Both so-called political parties (albeit it's one party: the business party) and they both support the war machine, as it were. They both support corporatism. They both serve a tiny sliver of the populace....

[QUOTE]

Cop out Ben, and you know it. Ballot box day. Will you stand with your arms folded and allow the Romney/Ryan ticket to win?

Democrats Retreat on Civil Liberties in 2012 Platform:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012...-2012-platform


Liberalism’s old world order:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...ld-world-order


Obama’s five rules for covert drone strikes:

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com...drone-strikes/

[quote=robertlouis;1195321][QUOTE=Ben;1195315]Both so-called political parties (albeit it's one party: the business party) and they both support the war machine, as it were. They both support corporatism. They both serve a tiny sliver of the populace....

Quote:

---

Cop out Ben, and you know it. Ballot box day. Will you stand with your arms folded and allow the Romney/Ryan ticket to win?

---

I think, sadly, it's a one party system.... But the Dems are considered the moderate wing of the business party.... But serve business interests. Above, say, the interests of nurses, firefighters, cops etc., etc.
I mean, Obama came out and supported gay marriage. Is this a good thing? Of course it is. And Obama should be commended for "affirming" his support of gay marriage. It was a good step forward by Obama.
I mean, we should praise Obama when he does good things. And critique him when he doesn't. None of us should blindly and unthinkingly support and defend him in whatever he does. That's frightening....
I mean, in terms of civil liberties Obama has been worse than Bush. But the so-called left defend him. Why?

President Obama on Gay Marriage - YouTube

[quote=Ben;1195329][quote=robertlouis;1195321]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben

Both so-called political parties (albeit it's one party: the business party) and they both support the war machine, as it were. They both support corporatism. They both serve a tiny sliver of the populace....

I think, sadly, it's a one party system.... But the Dems are considered the moderate wing of the business party.... But serve business interests. Above, say, the interests of nurses, firefighters, cops etc., etc.
I mean, Obama came out and supported gay marriage. Is this a good thing? Of course it is. And Obama should be commended for "affirming" his support of gay marriage. It was a good step forward by Obama.
I mean, we should praise Obama when he does good things. And critique him when he doesn't. None of us should blindly and unthinkingly support and defend him in whatever he does. That's frightening....
I mean, in terms of civil liberties Obama has been worse than Bush. But the so-called left defend him. Why?

---

I'm not disagreeing for a minute on that point Ben, all I'm asking is that faced with a choice of Romney or Obama, how will you vote? Slightly similar dilemma here: I've voted Liberal and subsequently Liberal Democrat all my life, but since they've gone into government with the Conservatives and been party to things I've opposed all my life, I feel disenfranchised. But on the day, I know that I'll vote Labour rather than Conservative, partly because I'm a radical at heart, but nothing could ever bring me to vote for the moneyed, privileged, braying ninnies who make up Cameron's cabinet.

Corporations dictate a lot of the positions each candidate takes. But ultimately you decide which set of options is more palatable regardless of who dicated it. I am aware of the abuses of privacy under the Bush administration and warrantless wiretapping. To be honest I am studying it chronologically and have not studied the differences under the Obama administration. It is troubling how the prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure has been discarded since the so-called war on terror began. Of course, states and laws must adjust to the exigencies of the moment and properly balance security v. privacy interests. I'm not for warrantless surveillance but I certainly understand the need to re-define reasonable search in a country where we have terror cells operating. But perhaps that's not what you mean when you talk about the erosion of civil liberties.

As far as bailing the banks out, the only alternative would be to let them fail. We don't have a direct democracy nor a referendum on every issue. What the Obama administration did wrong was not ensuring that there were more strings attached in the bailout of the banks. If federal money is being used to plug their losses then perhaps more risk averse (and inevitably duller) government bureaucrats should have taken the place of the bankers who created the mess. In other words, the dispersal of federal money should have been contingent upon mass firings at the top.

Here is where Republicans fail: They want to stack the Supreme Court with Conservative Justices who will undo decades of precedent in Substantive Due Process cases including Roe v. Wade. This case holding was predicated on the inherent right to privacy. That's a civil liberty as far as I'm concerned as is a woman's right to choose to define it more narrowly. They would like to slash social programs, starting with PPACA which promises hope for individuals with pre-existing conditions and other uninsurable folks who face dire health consequences if it is repealed. They would like to keep the top marginal tax rate from being raised, abolish the estate tax or when the 5 million dollar exemption expires vote on raising it. They want to try to balance the budget while reducing taxes and help finance this top down reduction in taxes by cutting "entitlements".

They would like to continue on a state by state basis the fight against gay marriage by endorsing state constitutional changes that would pre-emptively ban same-sex marriage even if it were legalized by the state legislature. But I think the fiscal concerns of the Republicans can be summed up best by looking at two positions they take. They are in favor of tough bankruptcy laws that encourage personal responsibility. On the other hand, they are in favor of tort reform because they don't want tort victims to get a windfall. Afterall, why shouldn't a corporation have its liability limited while an individual who makes financial mistakes bears the full brunt of them? To me this sums up their stupidity and moral bankruptcy and whatever the failings are of the Democratic party they couldn't possibly fail as consistently or as completely as the GOP.

Author of “No Easy Day” Admits to Committing a War Crime:

http://opiniojuris.org/2012/08/29/au...g-a-war-crime/

Ask the DNC: Is Romney Ready for the Kill List?

Video:

http://gawker.com/5941326/ask-the-dn...-the-kill-list

[quote=robertlouis;1195335][quote=Ben;1195329]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

I'm not disagreeing for a minute on that point Ben, all I'm asking is that faced with a choice of Romney or Obama, how will you vote? Slightly similar dilemma here: I've voted Liberal and subsequently Liberal Democrat all my life, but since they've gone into government with the Conservatives and been party to things I've opposed all my life, I feel disenfranchised. But on the day, I know that I'll vote Labour rather than Conservative, partly because I'm a radical at heart, but nothing could ever bring me to vote for the moneyed, privileged, braying ninnies who make up Cameron's cabinet.

---

The late historian Howard Zinn said it fairly well back in '08:

Howard Zinn: Vote for Obama but direct action needed - YouTube

Ben, you seem to have taken a thread about national conventions and who's better at the political dog and pony show and made it about policy. Policy is, of course, what matters but we have lots of threads on that and this was for the persuasive and rhetorical abilities of the two parties.

On your point about both parties being overly captured by moneyed interests, of course you're right, but denying any real difference between the parties is the kind of false equivalence that is just as blind and wrongheaded as those Obama supporters who won't acknowledge his civil liberties transgressions.

Im all for idealism as well but it is also about reality. I would vote for Obama if i were American simply because the alternative is too appalling to think about. It might appear to make the right noises on the surface (how many billion jobs did Romney promise to create in ten minutes) but underneath they are and remain the party of privilege - white, wealthy, pandering to bigots, the gun lobby, illiberal socially, in thrall to bug business and the religious right etc etc. It would have to be Obama to stop them - if nothing else.

[QUOTE=Ben;1195292]Do titanic transnational corporations (meaning: corporations having no allegiance to any country) have utter control over our government? If so then they've essentially become our government. Which, in essence, means we've a private government.
So, if we've a private government, composed of banks, insurance and oil companies, well, how do we hold them accountable? I mean, we can't turf Rex Tillerson out of his job like we can Obama.
So, we've essentially a private government -- ha ha ha! Everything is comical. Especially corporate control.... Or: private government.
/QUOTE]

Transnational corporations are accountable to their shareholders, Ben, as you keep reminding us -but unlike US Presidents face election every year at the Annual General Meeting of the company. If Exxon had been responsible for a major disaster on a Gulf of Mexico rig would Tillerson stil be CEO? Nobody is immune, not even CEO's. Also, in the case of some industries like oil and gas, they are strategically important in many ways -to consumers, industry and the military; they employ hundreds of thousands of people; their profits are the source of handsome tax revenues for state and federal goovernment (probably not as much as they could be); and their listing on Wall St, London, Frankfurt et al, means that millions of people who live on their pension are being paid from the profits of oil companies -in the UK, for example, approx £1 in every £7 that is earned by pension funds is earned from their shareholding in BP. Most of the institutional shareholders in the big firms like Exxon, BP, Shell, Mcrosoft, Apple and the Chemicals giants are concerned with the bottom line -keep the money coming in. Their survival depends on it. Are they too big to fail? It is an intriguing question, because in a way the answer is yes, they are.

It is the nature of capitalism -possibly of all political systems- that special interests, like cream, rise to the top, yet the truth is that if you lobby hard enough and your special interest -any special interest- has traction with voters, it can create a national dialogue demanding action from legislators. In the UK many fatuous hours of political debate in the 1990s was spent debating -fox hunting! Even when Labour passed a law banning it many hunts just went ahead regardless and still do, because most people couldn't care less about it. A small group of people persuaded Labour to adopt a ban as party policy and pushed it through into the new government and law, it had some resonance with people who saw it as a small group of rich people killing animals for sport, but it was never important, yet a triumph of a relatively small lobby on an issue with no social or economic importance to the UK as a whole.

But in the US, surely the success of LGBT activists since 1970 (say) has been to generate national debate on minority issues that range from important topics such as the right not to be discriminated against at work, to the tediously precious topic of 'gay marriage'. Corporations represent millions of shareholders and often have the money to influence people; but the LGBT movement, in spite of its divisions and occasional incoherence, also has millions of supporters but gets its support in different ways; I think it is wrong to cynically paint both Democrats and Republicans as being the same because your system favours two parties battling for the 'centre ground' -some would argue it is the basis of political stability in the USA. It also suggests if you want change in America, you need to work inside the system rather than against it; or mobilise on the outside to scare the people inside the beltway to do something about whatever 'it' is....

People used to go up to FDR and say "why don't you do this? why don't you do that?"
And he'd say "you have to make me do that"

Getting Obamacare through is a miracle. Without George Bush it never would have happened.

Anyway, with this economy, the first black president can't really do anything but survive. It will be up to Hillary to take the ball and run with it.

Did Hillary speak at the Convention? They covered most of it on BBC Parliament, but I don't recall seeing her. Am I right in thinking she is going to retire from politics? Is there a consensus on whether not the women Obama has appointed to various posts (excluding the Supreme Court) have been a success? Just wondering where a female Presidential candidate is going to come from.

While watching the DNC, I thought it was a skit, a parody from SNL. We had faux Cherokee Indians, TV stars who make a living with their ass, not their brains, failed governors, people smart enough to get into Georgetown Law school who are spending 3000 dollars on birth control when it can be obtained for 9 bucks a month, a video tribute from a deceased Senator, who let's face it...got away with manslaughter because of who he was, a vice president who's a convicted plagiarist, a DNC chairwoman so dumb even Anderson Cooper said she was in an alternate universe, a shouting match that resembled a European soccer match by the mere mention of god, and a former president who made the party faithful nostalgic for his economic policies, and his wet cigar....quite a cast of characters you put on display. The only misfit that was missing was Anthony Weiner ! As my favorite democrat famously said about the guy he's now attempting to prop up........."GIVE ME A BREAK.....THIS IS THE BIGGEST FAIRY TALE I'VE EVER SEEN" :dancing::dancing:

What a well thought-out response. It's no wonder the GOP is out of ideas if that's what passes for conservative wit. :dancing::dancing::dancing:

Calm down OMK. No need for hysterics. You're gonna give your senile old brain an aneurysm. After all, we could've gone with Betty White... probably should have... but we didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Did Hillary speak at the Convention? They covered most of it on BBC Parliament, but I don't recall seeing her. Am I right in thinking she is going to retire from politics? Is there a consensus on whether not the women Obama has appointed to various posts (excluding the Supreme Court) have been a success? Just wondering where a female Presidential candidate is going to come from.

---

Hillary was feverishly doing God's good work last week somewhere in Asia, or something, and as for 2016, lemme put it this way: I'm betting OMK a thousand bucks that there'll be another Clinton Ass sitting in the Oval Office come 2017. ha ha ha!

But does Chelsea have the experience for the job??