Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

... The rep of the Democrats as an extreme party that's toxic to the economy, that drove them farther and farther from power over the last 30 years, could be on the verge of being cemented again. Someone at the RNC (I forget who) asked the most pertinent question for voters right now. If Obama is re-elected, how will the next four years be any different from the last four? That's this election's version of "are you better off than you were four years ago?". And that could very well be what causes a repeat.

If true, this opinion reflects the opposite of reality. GOP economic results are much worse that those for the Dems, as are job creation numbers. Of course you already know that, because the numbers have been presented here several times.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No, they didn't. Disappointed Obama supporters are mostly progressives; moderates don't have the same problem with him. Disappointed Obama supporters will NOT be voting for Romney; the question is whether they will be voting for Obama, voting third party, or not voting. Appealing to them and at the same time to Tea Partiers is a logical impossibility.

I disagree with that. You are right about the progressives, but there are a lot of moderates and apolitical types who voted for Obama out of disgust with Bush and the freefalling economy of 2008 and decided to give Obama a chance. Now, four years later, they are still out of a job or not making as much as before the crash, or they know people in that situation, and they blame Obama. Those are the folks that Romney's commercials are aimed at. I don't have stats, but I expect there are a lot of them out there.

Hopefully after the election we can stop playing good cop/bad cop, or in other terms, my candidate is better than your candidate. I will hold my nose and vote for Obama this November but will continue my pressure on him about the following major issues that he has slipped under the radar. And these are but a few examples of his craziness. I can only pray that if he wins, many of us progressives will stop with making excuses for him and keep him accountable. If we don't, we deserve the growing corporate owned country we live in.

Drones: http://www.salon.com/topic/drones/


NDAA: http://www.aclu.org/national-securit...ntion-bill-law


Kill List: http://www.thenation.com/article/168...nce-not-option


TPPA: http://rt.com/usa/news/tpp-obama-cor...ons-trade-725/


Then there's this:
Obama’s Second Term Agenda: Cutting Social Security, Medicare, and/or Medicaid

By Matt Stoller, a political analyst on Brand X with Russell Brand, and a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. You can follow him at http://www.twitter.com/matthewstoller
This is probably the least important Presidential election since the 1950s. As an experienced political hand told me, the two candidates are speaking not to the voters, but to the big money. They hold the same views, pursue the same policies, and are backed by similar interests. Mitt Romney implemented Obamacare in Massachusetts, or Obama implemented Romneycare nationally. Both are pro-choice or anti-choice as political needs change, both tend to be hawkish on foreign policy, both favor tax cuts for businesses, and both believe deeply in a corrupt technocratic establishment.


So while the election lumbers on like the death rattles of the wounded animal known American democracy, no one on either side is asking what the plan is for the next term. For Obama, his team is going into rooms of donors and shouting “Supreme Court”, while mumbling something about bipartisanship and $4 trillion, or Simpson-Bowles. What this means is that term two of the Obama White House will be organized around cutting entitlements.
The White House already tried cutting all three main entitlement programs, last year (cuts to Medicaid are actually cuts to Obamacare, for what it’s worth, since an expansion of Medicaid was a key plank of the new health care law).

The White House agreed to cut at least $250 billion from Medicare in the next 10 years and another $800 billion in the decade after that, in part by raising the eligibility age. The administration had endorsed another $110 billion or so in cuts to Medicaid and other health care programs, with $250 billion more in the second decade. And in a move certain to provoke rebellion in the Democratic ranks, Obama was willing to apply a new, less generous formula for calculating Social Security benefits, which would start in 2015.

Going after entitlements is in fact a tradition of Democratic politicians since the 1980s. The post-WWII model of dealing with entitlements was to expand them as a way of boosting aggregate demand. But as Carter, Reagan and Volcker ushered in an era of Wall Street greed and austerity, that trend reversed. In the early 1980s, Speaker of the House Tip O’Neil collaborated with Ronald Reagan to raise taxes on the poor and middle class with a “grand bargain” around Social Security. Later on, Bill Clinton had his go at the programs, with an even more aggressive plan to destroy the remains of New Deal liberalism.


Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/...aw0zzCw3kyK.99

Originally Posted by The Rani

It was awesome, reminded me of the Dean Martin celebrity roasts in the 1970s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiHNVYRTKP8

I LOVED those--even when I was a kid. My favorite was Foster Brooks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcYTQokKdIg

Yeah, it's not PC, but it still makes me laugh.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

... I have to give him and the Republican Party credit for the way the convention was pieced together. They managed to take the two most important political constituencies out there right now - the Tea Party movement and disillusioned Obama supporters - and weld them together seamlessly into a unified message. If Romney can perform well throughout the rest of the campaign, it could produce a powerful winning coalition.

The 'disillusioned Obama supporters' are as disillusioned with the Republican pols as with the results of President Obama. Most would like to see a return to politics as they were in 2009 and 2019. The Tea Party has not won enough converts to outdo disgust at their results.

We're in a familiar situation. In 1960, after a very popular Republican presidency, the Democrats elected a relatively moderate, even conservative president in John F. Kennedy. We all know what happened after that - he was assassinated by a communist, and the far left started charging to the extreme, dragging the Democrats with them. By 1980 that had produced chaos and a crippled economy. All of a sudden the "extreme" views of Ronald Reagan didn't seem so extreme anymore. For the next 12 years, the Democrats had the living daylights stomped out of them by voters, until they finally caved in and nominated a relatively moderate/conservative candidate in Bill Clinton (albeit he was a crook, and one of the most corrupt, dishonest presidents in American history). We're now on the verge of 1980 happening again, even though Mitt Romney is no Reagan. The Democrats and the far left sense this, and they're panicking. But they can't change course right now and moderate their positions, so they're just lashing out with increasingly hysterical charges of racism, sexism, etc. slinging mud furiously and playing identity politics harder than ever, despite the fact that it always ends up destroying them.

Sigh! How do I deal with this? Sentence by sentence, I suppose.

We're in a familiar situation. In 1960, after a very popular Republican presidency, the Democrats elected a relatively moderate, even conservative president in John F. Kennedy.

Eisenhower was an above-average President; Dubya is undeniably one of the worst. The only 'conservative' policy of JFK was to cut the high marginal rates that were in place as a war measure.

The rep of the Democrats as an extreme party that's toxic to the economy, that drove them farther and farther from power over the last 30 years, could be on the verge of being cemented again.

President Obama is not an extremist. For real 'toxic shock' to the economy, just look at the speculative boom that Dubya sponsored. That will hamstring the American economy for years. Capital that could have instead gone into investment in plant and equipment instead got devoured and ultimately wasted. The economic meltdown that began in 2007 simply recognized the folly of selling people over-priced housing on predatory credit. Such ultimately-bad business practice is a virtual replay of Sinclair Lewis' Babbitt from precisely one saeculum earlier... with similar results.

We know how that goes. People of modest wisdom people learn from their mistakes; big fools don't. Wise people learn from the mistakes of others willing to teach them to avoid the same error; not-so-big fools fail to heed such teaching. Making the same mistake that people did in a previous saeculum after those who could teach people to avoid that same mistake takes a heroic level of caution and a willingness to resist the frenzy and fads that become fashionable and tempting about a lifetime after the folly has been done.

History repeats when people who know better are no longer around. We got a replay of the failed "New Era" economics and politics of the 1920s when the people last around to warn of the folly of such a time were no longer around.

Someone at the RNC (I forget who) asked the most pertinent question for voters right now. If Obama is re-elected, how will the next four years be any different from the last four? That's this election's version of "are you better off than you were four years ago?". And that could very well be what causes a repeat.

http://advisorperspectives.com/dshor...four-bears.gif

Does anyone in his right mind want a return to the sort of fear that people had four years ago -- of an economic meltdown as severe and protracted as that of 1929-1933?

I look at those charts and I see the election of President Barack Obama as one of the best things that could have happened to America even if he had Carter-like non-achievements afterward.

How do you picture Obama leaving office?

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

How do you picture Obama leaving office?

In a vehicle of some sort. I can't imagine he'd walk.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

In a vehicle of some sort. I can't imagine he'd walk.

No, Chaney already did that. In a wheelchair, wearing black.

Originally Posted by The Rani

It was awesome, reminded me of the Dean Martin celebrity roasts in the 1970s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiHNVYRTKP8

Then again, it may also have been Gestalt Therapy.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

How do you picture Obama leaving office?

Like most of the world I will almost certainly watch his departure on televison. Of course, assuming a friendly transfer of power he and Michelle will likely remain for the inaguration and perhaps shortly afterwards to socialize with the new president and begin his role as an elder statesman. Yes I hope to see all of this. And in good health. I also suspect, as hinted at above, that more likely than not the calander the hangs on the wall over my TV will be displaying the month of January, 2017 as all of this transpires. :

Someday we will look back and ask ourselves why we let them get by with handing over our democracy to corporations. Instead, we point at each other as the problem.

Step by step, it's all being taken away from us. Meanwhile, we fiddle.

Mike Lofgren on Dysfunction in Our Political Parties

BILL MOYERS: Both parties catering, as you write so vividly in here, to their funders, their donors, the billionaires, the Wall Street financiers, the corporations. And yet they, one or the other keeps getting away with it.

MIKE LOFGREN: It's happened before in our country. It happened after the Civil War with the Gilded Age. So it's not surprising it can occur when money starts infusing into politics. They will capture the governmental mechanism, just as Wall Street has captured it now. Wall Street has captured Washington at its source, the capital.

BILL MOYERS: Just give me one example.

MIKE LOFGREN: One example would be banks that we are bailing out. Why not compensation limits on their CEOs and top executives? We didn't get that. But we did get limits on the compensation and the benefits of U.A.W. employees when we bailed out General Motors and Chrysler.

BILL MOYERS: We got from unions what we didn't get from the financiers on Wall Street?

MIKE LOFGREN: That is correct.

BILL MOYERS: How come? How so?

MIKE LOFGREN: Money from Wall Street into the pockets of campaigns.

MIKE LOFGREN: If somebody texts $20 to their favorite candidate, okay, that's $20. And they're not really expecting anything other than they like that candidate and they want him to win. But when savvy businessmen like Sheldon Adelson, who've shelled out $36 million so far and expects to spend $100 million before the end of the election cycle, when somebody like that is spending that kind of money, they expect a tangible, monetizable payoff.

BILL MOYERS Another example?

MIKE LOFGREN: When you see legislation, for instance, having to do with casinos, and I think the key word there is Jack Abramoff, you see these things happening.

BILL MOYERS: Did anything about the Abramoff scandal surprise you?

MIKE LOFGREN: Not at all. It was totally par for the course.

BILL MOYERS: What do you mean?

MIKE LOFGREN: That's the way influence works in Washington.

More: http://billmoyers.com/segment/mike-l...tical-parties/

Originally Posted by annla899

No, Chaney already did that. In a wheelchair, wearing black.

A long black robe and a raspy-sounding breath mask?

(Sorry. I couldn't resist.)

Originally Posted by JDFP

You should be - it was highly entertaining. I had a great laugh at his quips. He definitely should have been scripted though - that was a major mistake in not having a prepared script for him as I'm sure he would have hit it every line perfectly as he had a couple awkward pauses (I could just imagine the conversation of: "Hey guys, Eastwood is here, let's get him up there before Mittens comes on! What? Who needs a script?!"). Eastwood is a cultural icon and I absolutely think it was great to have him at the convention, but even with the humor he presented I do have to ask the wisdom in presenting him just two speakers before Mittens and not on the first or second night. And he should have been scripted and better prepared as opposed to fly on the spot.

It would have been a bit like having Frank Sinatra do an opening speech (with no script) in introducing Reagan in '80 or Dana Carvey introducing Bush Sr. in '92 (well, Dana Carvey isn't exactly on the same level as Sinatra or Eastwood but you get the point). While it's always great to see a cultural icon - I'll even admit it's probably not the best idea to have them right before the nominee to steal fire from them. Especially not scripted.

I enjoyed it for what it was and had a great laugh - but I still have to question the wisdom of doing it when they did it - and my God, no script again!

Wait, what, you want Clint Eastwood to do what with himself? I don't think he's going to do that.

j.p.

I agree, his performance was a little unsteady he needed to polish it up. It was however full of truth and brilliant comedy. Even far left kook Bill Maher thought it was funny stuff. The Empty chair really symbolized the Obama Presidency. Empty promises and empty leadership. A complete hack who is not up to the job. His bit about crying at Obama's election and then crying about the 23 million out of work...spot on!

Originally Posted by Weave

I agree, his performance was a little unsteady he needed to polish it up. It was however full of truth and brilliant comedy. Even far left kook Bill Maher thought it was funny stuff. The Empty chair really symbolized the Obama Presidency. Empty promises and empty leadership. A complete hack who is not up to the job. His bit about crying at Obama's election and then crying about the 23 million out of work...spot on!

Yes, and then Mitt Romney came on following him, and showed that he is not up to the job of giving even half as good a speech as Clint Eastwood did off the cuff. Shades of what we could expect if Americans are looney enough to put him in that chair.

Originally Posted by Weave

I agree, his performance was a little unsteady he needed to polish it up. It was however full of truth and brilliant comedy. Even far left kook Bill Maher thought it was funny stuff. The Empty chair really symbolized the Obama Presidency. Empty promises and empty leadership. A complete hack who is not up to the job. His bit about crying at Obama's election and then crying about the 23 million out of work...spot on!

Agreed 100%. And Mitt gave a fine and, what I believed to be, rousing speech as well regarding the failure of the presidency we've unfortunately witnessed over the last four years. As far as Bill Maher goes, I'll take your word for it - I sure won't listen/witness any of his vulgar nonsense (nor that mockumentary film-maker Moore either - at least Leni Riefenstahl had class and talent in her propaganda film making unlike these two guys). The man is disturbed. I do flip over to MSNBC from time to time just for a laugh as they don't even attempt to sugarcoat the fact that they are liberal media minions (as most of the other established media attempts to do) as they are just out and about and in your face - and I actually find that refreshing that at least they are honest about it.

j.p.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes, and then Mitt Romney came on following him, and showed that he is not up to the job of giving even half as good a speech as Clint Eastwood did off the cuff. Shades of what we could expect if Americans are looney enough to put him in that chair.

-- until you consider the alternative. I don't care for Mittens either, but really.... this year's horse race is between the 2 turds

Originally Posted by sonrisa

-- until you consider the alternative. I don't care for Mittens either, but really.... this year's horse race is between the 2 turds

You got that right!

I have a feeling that the effort to turn the convention into a coronation did not help his campaign because the Ron Paul supporters walked out in the middle of it. Why do I think that pissing off so many well organized Millies all at once is a really bad idea? This will end badly for the Republican Party in the fullness of time and I am not the only one who thinks so.

If Ron Paul launches a third-party bid for President I will not only vote for him but volunteer in his campaign!

Originally Posted by Galen

You got that right!

I have a feeling that the effort to turn the convention into a coronation did not help his campaign because the Ron Paul supporters walked out in the middle of it. Why do I think that pissing off so many well organized Millies all at once is a really bad idea? This will end badly for the Republican Party in the fullness of time and I am not the only one who thinks so.

AH, you and I agree for once!

I think one could compare it to Ted Kennedy's failed bid to oust Jimmy Carter in the primaries in 1980, which is thought by many to have depressed base turn-out and helped Reagan win.

Originally Posted by Galen

You got that right!

I have a feeling that the effort to turn the convention into a coronation did not help his campaign because the Ron Paul supporters walked out in the middle of it. Why do I think that pissing off so many well organized Millies all at once is a really bad idea? This will end badly for the Republican Party in the fullness of time and I am not the only one who thinks so.

The timing is exquisite.

If history is any guide, most of those Libertarian Millies who will be too disgusted to vote GOP in 2012, will eventually grow out of their prolong adolescence and abandoned the Mises sophistry and vote Progressive in 2016.

It adds to the demographics that lead to the demise of the Right as it is known today. Two thumbs up!

Clint Eastwood's racist dog whistle:



Note the throat-cutting motion

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

How do you picture Obama leaving office?

January 20, 2017... after Democrats have put in place a Senate with a firm Democratic majority as several of the winners of 2010 are defeated. There's much discussion of a seat on the US Supreme Court. Some incoming Democratic President promises to 'complete the job'.

Originally Posted by playwrite

If history is any guide, most of those Libertarian Millies who will be too disgusted to vote GOP in 2012, will eventually grow out of their prolong adolescence and abandoned the Mises sophistry and vote Progressive in 2016.

Not necessarily, in the seventies the Boomers were all reading Marx and that tended to shape their view of the world. Brian is still spouting that crap after all of these years and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Now they are reading Mises, Hayek and Rothbard and it is unreasonable to think that there won't be similar effects. Given that both of the major parties are into big government and that it hasn't been working out so well lately. Given that Bernake keeps doing the same thing and giving it a new name it is only natural that they would look for a different direction.

Mises makes more sense than Marx or Keynes ever did.

Originally Posted by Odin

I think one could compare it to Ted Kennedy's failed bid to oust Jimmy Carter in the primaries in 1980, which is thought by many to have depressed base turn-out and helped Reagan win.

The base of the Republican party is currently the social conservatives and for the most part they were very happy with the outcome of the convention. There are those who think this is a replay of the 1976 election. I don't see anything resembling enthusiasm where Obama is concerned so this election is a coin toss at this point. It doesn't really matter which one we get since all it will mean is more of a police state, more debt and more wars.

Originally Posted by Galen

Not necessarily, in the seventies the Boomers were all reading Marx and that tended to shape their view of the world. Brian is still spouting that crap after all of these years and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Now they are reading Mises, Hayek and Rothbard and it is unreasonable to think that there won't be similar effects. Given that both of the major parties are into big government and that it hasn't been working out so well lately. Given that Bernake keeps doing the same thing and giving it a new name it is only natural that they would look for a different direction.

Mises makes more sense than Marx or Keynes ever did.

Marx made sense on issues of right and wrong in capitalism. Like many prophets he got a critical reality very wrong -- that instead of tightening the screws on workers and forcing even greater suffering on workers (which would not happen for a century) capitalists would grant the proletariat a stake in the system through consumerism. Of course what America's tycoons and executives now do well fits the Marxist stereotype of rapacious plutocrats, a despicable turn in history. Consider this, though: Marx was among the first to contemplate what would happen when scarcity disappeared. He called it Communism, a political order in which the repressive powers of the State would vanish. You can call it what you want.

Keynes had a practical solution to an economic downturn make the government the investor and purchasing agent of last resort when the capitalist order falters.

Mises? Back to the Gilded Age even if the economic and technological realities contradict the realities of the Gilded Age.