REASON 17: I’M VOTING FOR OBAMA BECAUSE I LOVE MONEY, BUT I’M NOT MONEY’S BITCH.
obama

Here’s a quality link for those who wish to know what Obama has done with his time in office. It’s broken down by category and has a very crisp structure to it. So for anyone looking to:
- Learn for yourself what Obama has done.
- Provide data to others regarding what Obama has actually done.
…this is the link of choice.

Privately and publicly, Mr. Obama has articulated what he sees as two overarching problems: coverage that focuses on political winners and losers rather than substance; and a “false balance,” in which two opposing sides are given equal weight regardless of the facts. Obama an Avid Reader, and Critic, of News Coverage ☀

I’m not happy with President Obama, but Gov. Romney is no improvement. Neither Obama nor Romney have realistic plans for unemployment or mortgage foreclosures. Both regard the federal budget deficit as a higher priority problem. But Obama at least has a realistic budget plan, and his record on federal spending is much more conservative than most of his admirers or detractors admit. Romney proposes further tax cuts for upper-bracket taxpayers, which will make the problem worse. Obama has not shown the least willingness to curb the irresponsible behavior of the financial elite which has brought on and prolonged the current economic recession. Romney is part of that financial elite. Romney vs. Obama on the economy ☀
Should the criteria for being put on a kill list remain secret, or should there be consistent standards that are promulgated and debated? Does the Constitutional guarantee of due process and Article III treason provisions imply a judicial role when American citizens are placed on a kill list, or is the Obama Administration correct that intra-executive branch deliberations can satisfy the requirement of due process? Should the strikes be carried out by the U.S. military or the CIA? In determining how many of the people we kill are innocent civilians, should we presume that all dead males of military age were in fact enemies of the United States?
Most important of all, is it imprudent to give this president and all future presidents the unchecked power to kill in secret? Or does human nature and the framework of checks and balances devised by America’s founders suggest that multiple layers of oversight is the wiser course?
The Obama Administration has answered these questions indefensibly, but the president’s defenders go right on defending his drone program with the inadequate argument that it is theoretically justified.

WHEN I was asked to direct “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” my friends warned me not to go anywhere near it.
The story is so American, they argued, that I, an immigrant fresh off the boat, could not do it justice. They were surprised when I explained why I wanted to make the film. To me it was not just literature but real life, the life I lived in Czechoslovakia from my birth in 1932 until 1968. The Communist Party was my Nurse Ratched, telling me what I could and could not do; what I was or was not allowed to say; where I was and was not allowed to go; even who I was and was not.
Now, years later, I hear the word “socialist” being tossed around by the likes of Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and others. President Obama, they warn, is a socialist. The critics cry, “Obamacare is socialism!” They falsely equate Western European-style socialism, and its government provision of social insurance and health care, with Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism. It offends me, and cheapens the experience of millions who lived, and continue to live, under brutal forms of socialism.
If Roberts had killed Obamacare, it would have rallied the DEMOCRATS. If Roberts had killed Obamacare, it would have meant facing Medicare for Everybody the next time the Dems (if ever) controlled enough Houses of Congress to give it to us. By saving the ACA, Roberts put off that day for a century or two. Medicare for Everybody is what Obama SHOULD have done. Instead, he sided with the health care insurance industry and kept them alive, nay, gave them fresh business and money, most of it from the government in the form of subsidies. The ACA is just about the worst ‘improvement’ of our health system that any person could imagine; but it IS an improvement. BartCop ☀
This episode perfectly illustrates the warped dynamic of this election. Romney’s core message is that Obama is a weak and ineffective president, whose mismanagement has led us to economic stagnation. But if there’s been stasis in our policy making, and a lack of action for the economy, it’s because the Republican Party is actively working to block administration efforts, even when they have majority support in Congress. By abusing the filibuster and other rules, the GOP has created a tremendous amount of congressional gridlock. Which, of course, is then blamed on Obama.

Obama’s strategy is to pin the Bush economic disaster on Romney, with good reason, since Romney has essentially the same policies as Bush. Since Obama has not consistently pinned the blame on Bush over the past four years, he comes off as defensive.
Romney’s strategy is to pin the disaster on Obama. He uses the Caretaker Metaphor — Obama has been the national caretaker, so the present condition is his responsibility. Since Obama started out assuming a caretaker’s responsibility, it is difficult for him to escape the frame now. He should have avoided it from the beginning. Pinning the disaster on Bush is possible, but it will take a lot of repetition, not just by the president, but by Democrats in general. Not just a repetition of economic facts, but of the moral differences that led to both the Bush disaster and the Obama attempt to recoup.
Perhaps the most important omission from the Obama speech was any overt mention of The Public — everything that our citizenry as a whole provides to all, e.g., roads, bridges, infrastructure, education, protection, a health system, and systems for communication, energy development and supply, and so on. The Private — private life and private enterprise — depends on The Public. There is no economic freedom without all of this. So-called “free enterprise” is not free. A free market economy depends on a strong Public. This is a deep truth, easy to recognize. It undercuts Romney’s central pitch, that is it private enterprise alone that has made our country great, and that as much as possible of The Public should be eliminated.
Romney calls free enterprise “one of the greatest forces of good this world has ever known.” In reality, America free enterprise has always required The Public.
Romney attacks The Public, speaking of “the heavy hand of government” and “the invisible boot of government.” The contrast is with the putative “invisible hand” of the market — which leads to the good of all if everyone follows their self-interest and the market’s natural force is not interfered with. Romney’s “invisible boot” evokes the image of a storm trooper’s boot on your neck. The government is the storm trooper, your enemy. You are weak and in an impossible position. You can’t move — a metaphor for being held back and not being able to freely engage in the economy. Romney uses the frame consistently: “The federal establishment,” he says,” has never seemed so hostile.” The Public is an “establishment” — an undemocratic institution — which is the enemy of the people. It is implicit in this frame that the government is not the people.
Romney’s assumption here is that democracy is based on the “liberty” to seek one’s self interest with minimal regard to the interests or well being of others. People who are good at this will succeed, and they deserve to. People who are not good at this will fail, and they should. In Romney’s speech, ”The Freedom to Dream,” he used the word “freedom” 29 times. This is what he means.
Although Obama intends to argue against this understanding, he unintentionally feeds it. He does so in three ways: First, by accepting and reinforcing many of Romney’s central frames (often by negating them); second, by moving to the right in his own argumentation; and third, by not spelling out his own moral principles explicitly right from the start.
One of President Barack Obama’s former professors appears to have turned against him, according to a recent YouTube video.
“President Obama must be defeated in the coming election,” Roberto Unger, a longtime professor at Harvard Law School who taught Obama, said in a video posted on May 22. “He has failed to advance the progressive cause in the United States.”
Unger said that Obama must lose the election in order for “the voice of democratic prophecy to speak once again in American life.”
He acknowledged that if a Republican wins the presidency, “there will be a cost … in judicial and administrative appointments.” But he said that “the risk of military adventurism” would be no worse under a Republican than under Obama, and that “the Democratic Party proposes no new direction.”
Got that, Dittoheads? Cops, firefighters, and teachers help create the essentials of a civil society. Whereas public-sector employees don’t do those things. And if you sense a contradiction … Obama! Conor Friedersdorf ☀

This vast, expansive interpretation of executive power to enable drone wars conducted in secret around the globe has also set dangerous precedent, which the administration has not realized or acknowledged. Once Obama leaves office, there is nothing stopping the next president from launching his own drone strikes, perhaps against a different and more controversial array of targets. The infrastructure and processes of vetting the “kill list” will remain in place for the next president, who may be less mindful of moral and legal implications of this action than Obama supposedly is. Obama’s Drone Wars and the Normalization of Extrajudicial Murder ☀
A GNT creation ©2007–2013

