Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I hate to point this out, but the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery or involuntary servitude, made an exception for punishment for a crime.

Which demonstrates the necessity of restoring or achieving a humane approach to criminal justice -- so that the police and the judicial system do not themselves become agencies of dehumanizing exploitation that the Hard Right seeks. Few take offense over harsh treatment of murderers, gangsters, rapists, and armed robbers. Minor offenders? Rehabilitation is the solution.

I DON'T trust the Hard Right with basic civil liberties for the poor, unemployed, religious or ethnic minorities, LGBT people, or political opponents. They would cull the electorate until there are few (but on the whole "politically reliable") participants so that politics could be determined from On High -- in some penthouse on Wall Street or some mansion of a Texas oil baron. The checks and balances of our system would be short-circuited. Those who either are shut out from the political process or have no meaningful choice invariably get stepped on, whether under a King operating under the assumption of Divine Right, a plantation owner, a prison bureaucracy, or a Commie system.

I don't really have that much problem with coerced labor from convicts. I do however have a problem with privatizing the prison industry itself. As I said above, this gives corporations a vested interest in maximizing the prison population, both as a source of cheap labor and to maximize pay from state governments for housing inmates. Corporate pressure on legislators to keep this population as high as possible could (and I believe already does) take the form of making sure there are laws carrying prison sentences that as many people as possible are likely to violate, and that sentencing sends as many people to prison as possible as opposed to alternative penalties.

I believe this is the biggest single reason why the United States has a larger prison population than any other country in the world as a percentage of the total population. It is altogether vile.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The issue is really, why did anyone in the GOP with even a single functioning synapse think that a poison pill amendment made any sense?

The GOP logic: get some of the youth vote by (take your choice):

1. pissing-off the elderly by cuts from SS and/or Medicare/Medicaid
2. pissing-off the shrinking middle class with more targetted tax cuts for the wealthy
3. pissing-off almost everyone with Defense increases and even larger cuts (see 1 and 2 above). or
4. pissing-off the youth vote by sticking it to them (see 1 through 3 above).

The situation is far worst and stupid than that, and it includes nearly every Dem as well.

The entire construct that limiting student loan interest rates has to be paid for is asinine. It is like believing that trolls need to be paid before crossing every bridge on the Interstate.

The money that is paid on student loans is just the govt using keystrokes to debit the bank accounts of these people and crediting the govt's ledger. The former is very meaningful; the latter is meaningless. The former pulls money out of the economy that could have otherwise been used by real people to buy real things like a house or a car or been the basis for a decision that they could get married and start a family – and in the process providing incomes to other real people that could then also go out and buy real things!

The latter, the crediting the federal ledger, is nothing more than money disappearing into the ether; the federal govt does not 'save' money – it ONLY issues (spends) and destroys (taxes) money into and out of the economy - to believe otherwise is to believe in trolls and orcs.

What is the economic downside of not increasing the interest rate, or even lowering it to zero, or OMG(!), just forgiving the entire debt? Why all that alternative spending on houses, cars, getting married, having kids, etc. could, hold onto your hats (!), help a sputtering economy. OMG, it could lead to an economic boom!!! And OMG, if that would happen, we might just possibly, but who knows for sure, have to maybe start worrying that inflation might just possibly get to a level that might just possibly be sort of maybe felt a little by everyone that is now employed, AND the FED, that has never had a problem with raising interest rates before, might just possible begin to believe that they can’t possible raise rates again or that while people are making money hand-over-fist we might not be able to possible raise taxes a bit to cool things off. OMG, like that’s so scarrrryyyy!

So scary that we not only leave all these folks mired in debt for years to come and become hypocrites about family values, but we keep 25 million people unemployed and our economy becoming second fiddle to China that has no belief in trolls, orcs and deficit myths.

Imagine if we were just a tad smarter about all this and quit believing in trolls, orcs and deficit myths? All we have left to argue about would be two-guys-on-a-wedding-cake.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I don't really have that much problem with coerced labor from convicts. I do however have a problem with privatizing the prison industry itself. As I said above, this gives corporations a vested interest in maximizing the prison population, both as a source of cheap labor and to maximize pay from state governments for housing inmates. Corporate pressure on legislators to keep this population as high as possible could (and I believe already does) take the form of making sure there are laws carrying prison sentences that as many people as possible are likely to violate, and that sentencing sends as many people to prison as possible as opposed to alternative penalties.

I believe this is the biggest single reason why the United States has a larger prison population than any other country in the world as a percentage of the total population. It is altogether vile.

Restitution and rehabilitation will both require toil. I need say little of restitution. Rehabilitation of people who have never or rarely done useful toil will require that they learn to toil. Someone who has been dealing drugs may need to do farm labor even under the threat of punishment for under-performance before getting a chance to learn how to do carpentry. Skilled work of any kind requires some self-discipline as well as the discovery of talent. Honest people can choose to work at the corner fast-food place for a near-minimum wage and discover aptitudes and preferences on the job; dishonest, greedy people can choose to deal drugs on a street corner.

A carcereal society in which most people are in prison or are one step away from becoming a convict except for adherence to the rigid discipline of the Party Line and the dictates of one's employer would as well serve a plutocratic elite as it would serve the Party Bosses and the nomenklatura of the old Soviet Union. The infamous Article 58 of the Soviet Union could easily be rewritten to serve a capitalist elite and its hangers-on:

Originally Posted by wikipedia

58-1: Definition of counter-revolutionary activity:

"A counter-revolutionary action is any action aimed at overthrowing, undermining or weakening of the power of workers' and peasants' Soviets... and governments of the USSR and Soviet and autonomous republics, or at the undermining or weakening of the external security of the USSR and main economical, political and national achievements of the proletarial revolution"

It was not limited to anti-Soviet acts: by "international solidarity of workers", any other "worker's state" was protected by this article.

58-1а. Treason: death sentence or 10 years of prison, both cases with property confiscation.
58-1б. Treason by military personnel: death sentence with property confiscation.
58-1в. In the case of flight of the offender in treason subject to 58-1б (military personnel only), his relatives were subject to 5–10 years of imprisonment with confiscation or 5 years of Siberia exile, depending on the circumstances: either they helped or knew and didn't report or simply lived with the offender.
58-1г. Non-reporting of a treason by a military man: 10 years of imprisonment. Non-reporting by others: offense by Article 58-12.

58-2. Armed uprising or intervention with the goal to seize the power: up to death with confiscation, including formal recognition as "enemy of workers".
58-3. Contacts with foreigners "with counter-revolutionary purposes" (as defined by 58-1) are subject to Article 58-2.
58-4. Any kind of help to "international bourgeoisie" which, not recognizing the equality of communist political system, strives to overthrow it: punishment similar to 58-2.
58-5. Urging any foreign entity to declaration of war, military intervention, blockade, capture of state property, breaking diplomatic relations, breaking international treaties, and other aggressive actions against USSR: similar to 58-2.
58-6. Espionage. Punishment: similar to 58-2.
58-7. Undermining of state industry, transport, monetary circulation or credit system, as well as of cooperative societies and organizations, with counter-revolutionary purpose (as defined by 58-1) by means of the corresponding usage of the state institutions, as well as by opposing their normal functioning: same as 58-2. Note: the offense according to this article was known as wrecking and the offenders were called "wreckers".
58-8. Terrorist acts against representatives of Soviet power or of workers and peasants organisations: same as 58-2.
58-9. Damage of transport, communication, water supply, warehouses and other buildings or state and communal property with counter-revolutionary purpose: same as 58-2.
58-10. Anti-Soviet and counter-revolutionary propaganda and agitation: at least 6 months of imprisonment. In the conditions of unrest or war: same as 58.2.
58-11. Any kind of organisational or support actions related to the preparation or execution of the above crimes is equated to the corresponding offenses and prosecuted by the corresponding articles.
58-12. Non-reporting of a "counter-revolutionary activity": at least 6 months of imprisonment.
58-13. Active struggle against revolutionary movement of tsarist personnel and members of "counter-revolutionary governments" during the civil war, same as 58-2.
58-14 (added on June 6, 1937) "Counter-revolutionary sabotage", i.e., conscious non-execution or deliberately careless execution of "defined duties", aimed at the weakening of the power of the government and of the functioning of the state apparatus is subject to at least one year of freedom deprivation, and under especially aggravating circumstances, up to the highest measure of social protection: execution by shooting with confiscation of property.

(The letters used for some subsections are Cyrillic letters).

Replace "revolution" with "capitalist progress", and one gets a general idea. It could either be overt rebellion or failure to meet standards -- or even failure to become a "snitch". Such would well serve a plutocratic elite that perfectly fits a Marxist stereotype of capitalist behavior.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in his The Gulag Archipelago characterized the enormous scope of the article in this way:

One can find more epithets in praise of this article than Turgenev once assembled to praise the Russian language, or Nekrasov to praise Mother Russia: great, powerful, abundant, highly ramified, multiform, wide sweeping 58, which summed up the world not so much through the exact terms of its sections as in their extended diacritical interpretation.

Who among us has not experienced its all-encompassing embrace? In all truth, there is no step, thought, action, or lack of action under the heavens which could not be punished by the heavy hand of Article 58.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article..._Penal_Code%29

Commie methods in the service of a plutocratic elite? That is one possible definition of fascism.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I hate to point this out, but the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery or inoluntary servitude, made an exception for punishment for a crime.

I have no issue with it for state purposes, charity, or even "what's your dirt doing in Boss's hole?" type work. It is a problem when it becomes for profit. Community service is given frequently as punishment in addition to or in lieu of prison. None of that is out of bounds.

Originally Posted by Aramea

I have no issue with it for state purposes, charity, or even "what's your dirt doing in Boss's hole?" type work. It is a problem when it becomes for profit. Community service is given frequently as punishment in addition to or in lieu of prison. None of that is out of bounds.

Good point.

I just read a pretty authoritative piece about the status of the Elizabeth Warren-Native American controversy in the Boston Globe and I have strong feelings about what must have happened. As you know, at different times both Penn and Harvard listed her as a minority hire, based on the idea that she was 1/32 Cherokee, which has not been clearly established. I agree-pathetic.

But here is what has come out. She did not make that claim when she applied to law school--she listed herself as white. She was not originally so listed in the Penn directory. Harvard began citing her as a minority hire when they under pressure for lack of diversity.

I am very strongly inclined to believe that Ms. Warren agreed to list herself as a minority as a favor to her institution. Now, because she has spent her working life in a hopelessly corrupt institution--modern academia--she is suffering somewhat because of it. I still hope she wins, but it's a sad commentary on where we are.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The situation is far worst and stupid than that, and it includes nearly every Dem as well.

The entire construct that limiting student loan interest rates has to be paid for is asinine. It is like believing that trolls need to be paid before crossing every bridge on the Interstate.

The money that is paid on student loans is just the govt using keystrokes to debit the bank accounts of these people and crediting the govt's ledger. The former is very meaningful; the latter is meaningless. The former pulls money out of the economy that could have otherwise been used by real people to buy real things like a house or a car or been the basis for a decision that they could get married and start a family – and in the process providing incomes to other real people that could then also go out and buy real things!

The latter, the crediting the federal ledger, is nothing more than money disappearing into the ether; the federal govt does not 'save' money – it ONLY issues (spends) and destroys (taxes) money into and out of the economy - to believe otherwise is to believe in trolls and orcs.

What is the economic downside of not increasing the interest rate, or even lowering it to zero, or OMG(!), just forgiving the entire debt? Why all that alternative spending on houses, cars, getting married, having kids, etc. could, hold onto your hats (!), help a sputtering economy. OMG, it could lead to an economic boom!!! And OMG, if that would happen, we might just possibly, but who knows for sure, have to maybe start worrying that inflation might just possibly get to a level that might just possibly be sort of maybe felt a little by everyone that is now employed, AND the FED, that has never had a problem with raising interest rates before, might just possible begin to believe that they can’t possible raise rates again or that while people are making money hand-over-fist we might not be able to possible raise taxes a bit to cool things off. OMG, like that’s so scarrrryyyy!

So scary that we not only leave all these folks mired in debt for years to come and become hypocrites about family values, but we keep 25 million people unemployed and our economy becoming second fiddle to China that has no belief in trolls, orcs and deficit myths.

Imagine if we were just a tad smarter about all this and quit believing in trolls, orcs and deficit myths? All we have left to argue about would be two-guys-on-a-wedding-cake.

H-m-m-m. OK, but my focus was on the politics of the issue. You can't win hearts and minds when you threaten stomachs - real or imaginary. People know when they are attending the feast and when they are the feast.

The military vote is not given for Romney.

Originally Posted by Reuters

Mack McDowell likes to spend time at the local knife and gun show "drooling over firearms," as he puts it. Retired after 30 years in the U.S. Army, he has lined his study with books on war, framed battalion patches from his tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, a John Wayne poster, and an 1861 Springfield rifle from an ancestor who fought in the Civil War.

But when it comes to the 2012 presidential election, Master Sergeant McDowell is no hawk.

In South Carolina's January primary, the one-time Reagan supporter voted for Ron Paul "because of his unchanging stand against overseas involvement." In November, McDowell plans to vote for the candidate least likely to wage "knee-jerk reaction wars."

The article is well worth reading. IMHO, as we get further away from the post WWII activist era, and the economics that made it possible, the cost of our global military empire is taking a toll on the military industrial complex. We are likely to see attempts to create more government sources of contracts for the well connected. The drug war will be expanded, along with increased police survelance of private citizens.

And the whole system will be increasingly discredited in the eyes of the citizens.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

The military vote is not given for Romney.



The article is well worth reading. IMHO, as we get further away from the post WWII activist era, and the economics that made it possible, the cost of our global military empire is taking a toll on the military industrial complex. We are likely to see attempts to create more government sources of contracts for the well connected. The drug war will be expanded, along with increased police surveillance of private citizens.

And the whole system will be increasingly discredited in the eyes of the citizens.

This election features no military veteran as a nominee for any major party. It is quite possible that combat veterans are the people who, best knowing the consequences of war, are least likely to initiate war. Little so promotes caution as does combat.

So much for the meme the Obama has the election in the bag. The latest CBS/NY Times poll shows Romney leading Obama 46-43. If you check the internals of the poll, the poll samples 36% Dems and only 30% Republicans. Also, Romney LEADS among WOMEN. Yes, the "War on women" meme is also failing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...ge-over-obama/

Romney also leads in the Rasmussen poll
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._tracking_poll

They are essentially tied in Gallup daily (yesterday)
http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx

All of this after a brutal primary fight and completely pro Obama slanted coverage by the "mainstream" media.


In addition in a separate USAToday/Gallup poll on congressional ballot choice the Repubs lead the Dems 50%-43%...that is a HUGE lead considering in historical terms that the Dems must have a several % point lead to actually pick up seats. Rasmussen also shows a similiar lead.



At this point in 1980 Carter lead Reagan by a healthy lead.....

Its only May and alot can happen but things are looking dicey for an incumbent President......

You lefties better start praying for better economic news.....

There are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Originally Posted by Weave

All of this after a brutal primary fight and completely pro Obama slanted coverage by the "mainstream" media.

This is where your reasoning falls totally flat. Normal expectations are for the the incumbent's polling to be the second-lowest of the season right now, as the challenger winds up the primary fight. Campaigning really hasn't started for Obama yet. Regardless of how "brutal" the nomination contest was, media attention has been focused largely on the GOP for obvious and perfectly legitimate reasons. The only time Romney is likely to poll higher than he does right now is immediately after the convention, when he should almost certainly poll ahead of Obama (Mondale polled ahead of Reagan right after the Democratic convention in 1984).

You can try to make this good news for Romney if you like, but it's not. If he's not clearly and unambiguously way ahead of Obama in all of the polls at this point, he's toast.

NYT/CBS poll used 'biased sample'

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

This is where your reasoning falls totally flat. Normal expectations are for the the incumbent's polling to be the second-lowest of the season right now, as the challenger winds up the primary fight. Campaigning really hasn't started for Obama yet. Regardless of how "brutal" the nomination contest was, media attention has been focused largely on the GOP for obvious and perfectly legitimate reasons. The only time Romney is likely to poll higher than he does right now is immediately after the convention, when he should almost certainly poll ahead of Obama (Mondale polled ahead of Reagan right after the Democratic convention in 1984).

You can try to make this good news for Romney if you like, but it's not. If he's not clearly and unambiguously way ahead of Obama in all of the polls at this point, he's toast.

Reagan trailed Carter at this point and Clinton didnt pull ahead until after his convention. Obama should have a commanding lead at this point much like Clinton in 96 did over Dole and Reagan did over Mondale at this point. Going into the summer with a slight lead over an incumbent is a positive sign, and much better than going into the summer behind. I'd still give a slight edge to Obama but its tenuous at best and certainly does not portend to taking the House back either. Tick tock tick tock....

Originally Posted by Weave

So much for the meme the Obama has the election in the bag. The latest CBS/NY Times poll shows Romney leading Obama 46-43. If you check the internals of the poll, the poll samples 36% Dems and only 30% Republicans. Also, Romney LEADS among WOMEN. Yes, the "War on women" meme is also failing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...ge-over-obama/

Romney also leads in the Rasmussen poll
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._tracking_poll

They are essentially tied in Gallup daily (yesterday)
http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx

All of this after a brutal primary fight and completely pro Obama slanted coverage by the "mainstream" media.

Wrong. The Republicans did everything possible to vilify the President and liberalism in general. They may have gone too far.

Challengers can carp about the incumbent all that they want when they aren't making decisions that can at most satisfy a little more than half the population. Incumbents legislate or govern while challengers can offer everything for everybody even if such promises contradict. But eventually the challengers get pegged on what they stand. Romney has taken some stands likely to be extremely unpopular.

In addition in a separate USAToday/Gallup poll on congressional ballot choice the Repubs lead the Dems 50%-43%...that is a HUGE lead considering in historical terms that the Dems must have a several % point lead to actually pick up seats. Rasmussen also shows a similiar lead.

The campaigns have yet to begin. It may be that Republicans are very popular in ultra-safe seats and very unpopular in the rest.

At this point in 1980 Carter lead Reagan by a healthy lead.....

President Obama has done to this point what is usually enough at this stage to win re-election. What is left is the campaign. I expect him to campaign roughly as he did in 2008. That should be enough for a win.

President Obama has achieved far more in a little more than three years than most Presidents in similar time -- much in contrast to Carter. No President since LBJ has gotten so much legislation passed. No President since FDR has presided over the end of so dangerous and severe an economic meltdown. President Obama has some huge successes in foreign policy, including a huge reduction in anti-Americanism worldwide.

Its only May and alot can happen but things are looking dicey for an incumbent President......

You lefties better start praying for better economic news.....

The President has taken away foreign policy, his supposed weak spot in 2008. Osama bin Laden is no more, and the GOP runs to the Right of the President on foreign and military policy at the risk of all credibility. "Nuke Iran" is a call for mass death.

Originally Posted by Weave

Reagan trailed Carter at this point and Clinton didnt pull ahead until after his convention.

You're really reaching here, dude. Desperation in every line. Go ahead, reassure yourself all you want, use whatever evidence (carefully selected, of course) you need to to avoid losing it. I don't really need to argue with you. Events will do that just fine.

Originally Posted by Odin

NYT/CBS poll used 'biased sample'

Odin, I can't get your link.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Wrong. The Republicans did everything possible to vilify the President and liberalism in general. They may have gone too far.

I couldn't say much about this because I hadn't really followed the primary campaigns all that closely (since I was for sure not voting for any of them), but as far as Romney is concerned this may well be true. I got the sense that as each not-Romney candidate emerged into prominence, he would go into attack-dog mode and savage them, but he himself didn't get a lot of nastiness thrown his way, most of that being reserved for Obama (except what was thrown by Romney himself).

Romney's problems in this election are huge. They include, without limitation:

1) He's running against the incumbent at a time when things are slowly improving.
2) He's a Mormon in a party with a huge, key constituency that is biased against Mormons.
3) He has a big-business background with a personally very nasty history at a time when anti-corporate sentiment is running high.
4) In general, he is filthy rich and displays, historically and currently, a lack of compassion for the non-rich.
5) He's infamous as a flip-flopper without convictions.

It's not impossible for him to win this election. But it would take a serious catastrophe or a mondo scandal in the White House. There's a reason why all the GOP first string decided to sit this election out. The party's chances are likely to be much better in 2016.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I couldn't say much about this because I hadn't really followed the primary campaigns all that closely (since I was for sure not voting for any of them), but as far as Romney is concerned this may well be true. I got the sense that as each not-Romney candidate emerged into prominence, he would go into attack-dog mode and savage them, but he himself didn't get a lot of nastiness thrown his way, most of that being reserved for Obama (except what was thrown by Romney himself).

Romney's problems in this election are huge. They include, without limitation:

1) He's running against the incumbent at a time when things are slowly improving.
2) He's a Mormon in a party with a huge, key constituency that is biased against Mormons.
3) He has a big-business background with a personally very nasty history at a time when anti-corporate sentiment is running high.
4) In general, he is filthy rich and displays, historically and currently, a lack of compassion for the non-rich.
5) He's infamous as a flip-flopper without convictions.

It's not impossible for him to win this election. But it would take a serious catastrophe or a mondo scandal in the White House. There's a reason why all the GOP first string decided to sit this election out. The party's chances are likely to be much better in 2016.

Romney is hardly my ideal candidate but his problems arent as bad as you have portrayed them.

answering your points

1. Things are hardly "improving". The mirage of a falling unemployment rate is simply that. The Labor dept is cooking the books by shinking the labor force to that of 1982 in country wih roughly 50 million more people. Using the 2007 labor force size the REAL rate is over 11%. 5.5 TRILLION in added debt...I could go on and on

2. When the choice is between Romney and "the first Gay President" Im fully confident every evangelical will be voting Romney.

3. The Big Business background will not hurt him, in fact the more people will see him as a problem solver, the better positioned he'll be to win independents.

4. Romney's personal approval has risen since the unofficial end of the primaries. Obama's has plateaued...

5. You are kidding right? Obama has flip flopped on how many issues? Does Gitmo ring a bell. Does Gay Marriage ring a bell...1996 he was for it, 2004 agianst it, 2008 against it, now he is for it...oh yeah he "evolved" back to his original position which is why most people (see the CBS poll) see it as a cynical political move....

Its very possible Romney could win, I still give it slightly less than 50% but he is gathering momentum and continued lousy job reports will put him over the top. Of course strong GDP reports and good employment numbers will put Obama over the top. More like Wilson in 1916 win a not Reagan 84, or even Clinton 96. The House most likely will stay Repub with a good chance to pick up the Senate

Originally Posted by Weave

Romney is hardly my ideal candidate but his problems arent as bad as you have portrayed them.

answering your points

1. Things are hardly "improving". The mirage of a falling unemployment rate is simply that. The Labor dept is cooking the books by shinking the labor force to that of 1982 in country wih roughly 50 million more people. Using the 2007 labor force size the REAL rate is over 11%. 5.5 TRILLION in added debt...I could go on and on

2. When the choice is between Romney and "the first Gay President" Im fully confident every evangelical will be voting Romney.

3. The Big Business background will not hurt him, in fact the more people will see him as a problem solver, the better positioned he'll be to win independents.

4. Romney's personal approval has risen since the unofficial end of the primaries. Obama's has plateaued...

5. You are kidding right? Obama has flip flopped on how many issues? Does Gitmo ring a bell. Does Gay Marriage ring a bell...1996 he was for it, 2004 agianst it, 2008 against it, now he is for it...oh yeah he "evolved" back to his original position which is why most people (see the CBS poll) see it as a cynical political move....

It's very possible Romney could win, I still give it slightly less than 50% but he is gathering momentum and continued lousy job reports will put him over the top. Of course strong GDP reports and good employment numbers will put Obama over the top. More like Wilson in 1916 win a not Reagan 84, or even Clinton 96. The House most likely will stay Repub with a good chance to pick up the Senate

I see a Romney win as quite possible, too -- it depends on what the economy does -- if it picks up somewhat, I see a 2004-size victory, or perhaps something between 2004 and 1996. If it deteriorates, Romney is in.

I do take issue with the idea of the Department of Labor "cooking the books". The Government uses survey data to generate the unemployment rate. If people report that they are not working or looking for work, then they are not in the labor force. The labor force could be shrinking because workers are discouraged, but it could also be shrinking as the massive Baby Boom generation fills the ranks of the retired. It could be that more women are staying out of the labor force. Also, noncitizens are returning home or at least not coming into the country. It's probably a mix of all of the above.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

...

Romney's problems in this election are huge. They include, without limitation:

1) He's running against the incumbent at a time when things are slowly improving.

From ominous to dreary. FDR won huge with that reality in 1936. Maybe Republicans will play up nostalgia for the Double-Zero Decade as they couldn't in 1936 for the Roaring Twenties. Is nostalgia for an unrecoverable time good politics?

2) He's a Mormon in a party with a huge, key constituency that is biased against Mormons.

Hatred among the Religious Right for President Obama is even stronger than religious bigotry against Mormons. Protestant fundamentalists did vote for Rick Santorum, a Catholic and an Italian-American, so so long as someone says the right things on economic and 'cultural' issues they can do well against a more exotic liberal egghead.

President Obama won without that part (poor, undereducated, Southern white voters) of the electorate that Carter won once and Clinton won twice, and he can easily do so again.

3) He has a big-business background with a personally very nasty history at a time when anti-corporate sentiment is running high.

This is the big one. Mitt Romney's business ethics will make plenty of grist for negative ads. Think of John Kerry in 2004, playing up his military service yet showing contempt for the war in which he served. Business acumen that generates profits and executive compensation for himself while destroying jobs will demonstrate everything wrong with the economic agenda of the Hard Right.

4) In general, he is filthy rich and displays, historically and currently, a lack of compassion for the non-rich.

The Obama campaign hasn't touched that yet. This President is leery of exploiting populist sentiments that over-stretch his abilities as a leader. I think that he would rather eke out a narrow in than make promises that he could never fulfill with inadequate support in Congress. One of two things have to happen for the President to do this: either he has huge gains in Congress that support such, or he loses otherwise.

5) He's infamous as a flip-flopper without convictions.

It used to be easy to say one thing before the NAACP and the diametric opposite before the (southern white) Citizens' Council and get away with it because tape devices and TV cameras were not running. . That is over. So doing now shows that one is a liar. People can change their minds over time and get away with it so long as it shows a change in convictions. But if it shows crass opportunism then that is vastly different and not so excusable. By selling out to the Hard Right Mitt Romney has showed himself an unprincipled opportunist.

It's not impossible for him to win this election. But it would take a serious catastrophe or a mondo scandal in the White House. There's a reason why all the GOP first string decided to sit this election out.

I don't know. Who is going to be in the first string of the GOP in 2016? The RINO types are off the scene. Gubernatorial winners of 2010 are faring badly in approval polls. New Senate figures? They are now voting and coming up with undistinguishable lockstep records. Southern moderates can win up north (LBJ, Carter, Clinton), but Southern reactionaries can't. Several GOP winners of 2016 in the Senate -- probably the last Tea Party pick-offs to stick around until then (Toomey, Ayotte, Burr, Rubio, Portman, Johnson) will be extremely vulnerable unless the Tea Party climate either holds or revives. It is much too early to discuss that now. If the Tea Party cult assumes and maintains dominance in American political life, then we have a fair idea of what America will be like until the eventual coup, mass uprising, or catastrophic war, and American politics will be more safely observed from Sweden.

The party's chances are likely to be much better in 2016.

I can make an observation now: the next Democratic President can still be a none-too-old Boomer (Andrew Cuomo, Amy Klobuchar). The next GOP President is likely to be a member of Generation X.

If it is Scott Walker, a current Hard Right favorite, then America has its equivalent of Fulgencio Batista.

Originally Posted by Weave

1. Things are hardly "improving".

In the public perception, yes, they are. That's all that matters. I'm not going to go into a discussion as to how deluded that perception may be; in very general terms I agree with you, although I disagree about the particulars. But that isn't going to help Romney, unless the problems manifest much sooner than I expect them to.

2. When the choice is between Romney and "the first Gay President" Im fully confident every evangelical will be voting Romney.

Few evangelicals will vote for Obama. That's not the same thing. There's a third choice you didn't mention: not voting.

3. The Big Business background will not hurt him, in fact the more people will see him as a problem solver, the better positioned he'll be to win independents.

Well, on that basis he should be well positioned to get your vote. The fact remains that the public is seriously soured on corporate America these days. You may disagree with that sentiment but it remains real.

Obama has flip flopped on how many issues?

Remember, he's the incumbent. Romney has to give people a reason to vote for him, rather than returning Obama to office. It's not a straight-up, even-basis comparison. The fact that Obama has disappointed his constituents is real (I've been unsparing in my criticism of him), and if Romney were NOT a flip-flopper and DID have convictions he might be in a position to use that against the president. As he IS a flip-flopper who does NOT have convictions, he loses the ability to use that issue to his advantage. If the two come out equally bad, Obama wins.

The only way that Obama could lose this election is if the economy seriously tanks between now and election day. As long as things are improving, or at least perceived to be improving, Obama will win.

We still watching the popular vote numbers? They make a nice headline but they don't do much good in predicting outcomes.

Here's why Romney is in big trouble: Obama basically has to win over Ohio or Florida or a handful of smaller states. Romney needs Ohio, and Florida, and North Carolina, and Colorado, and Missouiri, and Arizona, and Iowa, and New Hampshire...

And there's no simple strategy that wins over all of those politically diverse states. NC is very socially conservative, but Colorado sure isn't. Then again, we'll probably see a different "quantum Romney" for every state he visits.

I know there will be many who will be upset with me for posting this but sometimes being silent in the face of an ever growing dysfunctional political system just isn't an option. The very thing that will drag our country even further down the toilet, will be the ultimate winner in 2012. Mark my word.

The National Security State Wins (Again)

Now that Mitt Romney is the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, the media is already handicapping the presidential election big time, and the neck-and-neckopinion polls are pouring in. But whether President Obama gets his second term or Romney enters the Oval Office, there’s a third candidate no one’s paying much attention to, and that candidate is guaranteed to be the one clear winner of election 2012: the U.S. military and our ever-surging national security state.


Excerpt:

Election 2012 will be all about preserving the imperial status quo, only more so. Come January 2013, regardless of which man takes the oath of office, we’ll remain a country with a manic enthusiasm for the military. Rather than a president who urges us to abhor endless war, we’ll be led by a man intent on keeping us oblivious to the way we’re squandering our nation’s future in fruitless conflicts that ultimately compromise our core constitutional principles.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...ain_20120515//