The 2012 "Election" thread

[compared2what?]

Nobody is forcing you to agree with our point of view; feel however you want about the issue of baby-killing drone attacks. But the contempt you and others are showing for people who DO feel this way is, well, contemptible. People follow their own sense of ethics and morality. We are all responsible for upholding our own integrity, in word and deed. By castigating others for taking what we feel is a self-evidently principled stance on baby-killing drone attacks by a fully complicit POTUS and sneeringly insisting we take a stand that we've already clearly taken, you are not maneuvering us into revealing any flaws in our logic, you are revealing yourselves as people who revere rigid rhetorical structure and inhumane 'reason' over principle and humanity.

Sunny I'll let Jack speak for himself but if the "stand that we've already clearly taken" is voting your conscience I have no disagreement with that

Me either. And same goes double if it's (effectively) voting with your feet. But just as voting is not automatically complicity depending on what else you do, not voting is not automatically voting your conscience or voting with your feet.

(No implications about anyone on the thread intended. For real. I don't have any reason to think they're justified. I'm just elaborating on an on-topic point.)

[dada]

One out of the two duopoly parties, and only one, is on a crusade in many states to suppress the vote, using bureaucratic but also illegal means to deny it to black and Latino people. Why is that?

One out of the two duopoly parties, and only one, has a recent record of massive election fraud on the national level, with at least one well-known and momentous success in 2000. Why is that?

Why do the Republicans go to such extreme lengths to win? Why do they get so much life-support from the corporate media and the big money, without which they'd be in a permanent minority?

.

Because they can, I want to say. Because the form of our system allows it. You know, enough of because, may he be damned for a dog!

I have no answers at all, at all. The whole thing makes my head hurt.

[Lottie McLotsaluck]

I was stupid for saying the previous post of mine in this thread would be 'all' wrt the presidential election.
I had a fairly large bit saved to drafts and needed to look some info up -came back and somehow it wasn't saved.
I am going to bed soon and will have to be quick this time around and post-
It is indeed funny how a tiny fraction of people say 'Vote all you want- it doenst make a dime's worth of difference." and then 10 minutes later yell- very LOUDLY-at someone in the pro -Obama vote camp.
In fact, I don't think i have seen any of the pro Obama people get near as angry as any of the anti -vote, anti-Obama people.
the question Jack had wrt the lengths the repubs go to get elected-and the various disgusting and horrible things they do needs to be talked about in a kind, no-yelling manner.
Even though I can't bring myself to vote for him this time --I do want the idea that the two parties platforms and people are the same put to rest -as I stated on the 'fuck romney' thread, there seems to be a lot of effort here put into making the dems more horrible (or just as horrible as the repukes--and almost never the other way around! No offense to whichever writer stated Romney is just a 'clueless arisocrat' -yeah he's just a harmless mr howell --I say BS to that one
Look forward to talking about this soon!

[justdrew]

maybe it's nothing, maybe it's just a game, whatever, I'll bother to give it another shot. One more time, again!

1. There's a hell of a lot of other people counting on me to do my part, today and in history. The most effective way I can support them is to vote Democratic AND keep pressure up to make sure the party actually follows through as best as possible. Strength in unity, etc. It's a struggle at all times. It's a wide coalition, it has to be. It can keep getting better. It's not the most radical thing, but it's the best spot to push at the moment.

2. And anyway, the republican party is at heart, a party of and for bullies, power-abusing, lying bullies. I've never seen such a display of disgusting psychopathic monsters as they've put on these last 14 years, and it's only getting worse... Saying NO to them, in the manner most likely to prevent their election, is a great thing. The "other guy" HAS to win, even if he's no better (though I think he is in this case, somewhat).

no retreat, no surrender, no pasaran


We HAVE a party here, that can be influenced and can effect positive change. Won't you come? Now get charged up a bit for heaven's sake!

[lupercal]

Live it again:





...and again, with feeling:

[Hammer of Los]

...

Nice one Drew.

I hear the sound of drums.

Knock on wood.

...

[NeonLX]

{SIGH}

I guess I'm in.

I'll drag my sorry carcass down to the polls one more time to vote against what I see as a complete monstrosity in Mittler/Eddie Munster. There may be *some* good in the Obama camp--while there most definitely *is not* with the other guys.

And I'm swayed by the argument that we need all the time we can get.

[JackRiddler]

{SIGH}

I guess I'm in.

I'll drag my sorry carcass down to the polls one more time to vote against what I see as a complete monstrosity in Mittler/Eddie Munster. There may be *some* good in the Obama camp--while there most definitely *is not* with the other guys.

And I'm swayed by the argument that we need all the time we can get.

Think of the camp, the coalition, the populations involved, rather than the current figureheads. Think of strengthening that camp. See the possibility that this is an incipient popular front. If there has been a genuine popular peaceful revolution in 2008, rather than another show election, what would the revolutionary coalition have looked like? A lot like the electoral movement mustered by the Obama side. The reaction against the revolution would have looked more like the support - to call it a movement would be exaggerated - mustered by the McCain side.

Now of course the first political move after inauguration was to tell the Obama-voting movement to go home and watch the bullshit fly on TV -- like that graphic of Obama saying, "I got this." Yeah, right, with Rahm and Bob Gates and Timmy. So what if the people hadn't gone home, what if they had learned to be more adversarial and conditional in their support? What if the day after 2,000,000 attended the inauguration, half of them had known to stick around for a rally to call for dismissal of the Bush agenda, to demand a new agenda from the people and not the mostly-same-old-shit that the incoming admin served up?

These are the things we must imagine. Think that if such an initially electoral coalition holds together, it can demand real change once the theater of fake/lame/insufficient change is spent. Can. Not must. Nothing is inevitable. We all have to push. I think the chances of such a thing are higher as long as more and more people believe the majority supports the idea of ending war and advancing economic justice. This gives more room for the culture to change, for the movement to move on beyond electoral involvement, for the establishment-oriented "liberal" leaders to be overcome, for the right wing to become completely discredited and appear to be hopelessly old and obsolescent.

The other option is to have the majority believe most people are with the bullies, the stingy bastards, the super-rich, the racists -- spreading hopelessness and discouragement and conformity among all who do not think like them.

At least, that's how I see the present constellation. Without taking away from anyone's decision of conscience to think and act otherwise. What I will reject and resent is if I am constantly told I am therefore enabling "baby murder," by people whose own actions may arguably mean even more "baby murder." I say all this without being in any way an "Obama supporter," because I'm not. I'm thinking along the lines I consider to be the best strategy in a very fucked-up situation, and would therefore (given only two possible outcomes, ceteris paribus) prefer Obama and abhor Romney.

.

[DrVolin]

What if the day after 2,000,000 attended the inauguration, half of them had known to stick around for a rally to call for dismissal of the Bush agenda, to demand a new agenda from the people and not the mostly-same-old-shit that the incoming admin served up?

Trust and verify should work at home as well as in Moscow.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... e_map.html

Ohio, Florida, Colorado to Romney: 247 vs 247. We haven't even talked about VA and NC yet. And they might not want to mess with the Michigan numbers. That might be too obvious and probably an unecessary risk.

[Iamwhomiam]

http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/158425/electoral-college-update-bad-news-for-romney-on-eve-of-debates/

Electoral College Update: Bad news for Romney on eve of debates

Posted on October 1, 2012 at 10:54 am by Richard Dunham in 2012, 2012 Presidential Election, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, President Obama

RICK DUNHAM'S ELECTORAL MAP -- October 1, 2012

Welcome to our weekly Electoral College update. Every Monday morning between now and Election Day, Nov. 6, we will analyze the latest poll results from the 12 most competitive states and let you know which ones are more Republican than the national average and which are more Democratic. We’ll also give you an update on any major shifts in the battleground states in the preceding week.

The big picture:

On the eve of the first presidential debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, polls show the Democratic incumbent leading in every battleground state. For the first time since we began our Electoral College Update, Obama has a clear lead in states (and the District of Columbia) with more than 270 electoral votes. He now stands at 271, one more than the magic number needed to claim victory.

There’s been a lot of kvetching among Republican loyalists over polling methodology. My thought: Rick’s Rule #1 of polling is that any individual poll can be wrong but they can’t all be wrong. Even Fox News’ polling shows Obama ahead.

The best way for Romney to redraw the map in a hurry is to perform well in the three upcoming debates. The national average over the past week stood at an Obama lead of 4.0 percentage points, almost unchanged from 3.9 a week ago and 3.1 a week two weeks ago.

Advantage: Obama.
Trend: None

(I'm unable to embed this and the lower placed graphic. Please visit link at top of posting to view.)

The battlegrounds:

Colorado
Lead: Obama +2.9
Compared to national average: Romney +1.1
Momentum over past week: Obama
Rick Dunham rating: Toss-up

Florida
Lead: Obama +3.2
Compared to national average: Romney +0.8
Momentum over past week: Obama
Rick Dunham rating: Toss-up

Iowa
Lead: Obama +3.7
Compared to national average: Romney +0.3
Momentum over past week: Obama
Rick Dunham rating: Lean Obama

Michigan
Lead: Obama +8.8
Compared to national average: Obama +4.8
Momentum over past week: Obama
Rick Dunham rating: Obama favored

Nevada
Lead: Obama +3.8
Compared to national average: Romney +0.2
Momentum over past week: Obama
Rick Dunham rating: Toss-up

New Hampshire
Lead: Obama +3.0
Compared to national average: Romney +1.0
Momentum over past week: Obama
Rick Dunham rating: Toss-up

New Mexico
Lead: Obama +10.0
Compared to national average: Obama +6.0
Momentum over past week: None
Rick Dunham rating: Obama favored

North Carolina
Lead: Obama +1.1
Compared to national average: Romney +2.9
Momentum over past week: Obama
Rick Dunham rating: Toss-up

Ohio
Lead: Obama +5.9
Compared to national average: Obama +1.9
Momentum over past week: Obama
Rick Dunham rating: Lean Obama

Pennsylvania
Lead: Obama +8.0
Compared to national average: Obama +4.0
Momentum over past week: None
Rick Dunham rating: Obama favored

Virginia
Lead: Obama +3.7
Compared to national average: Romney +0.3
Momentum over past week: Romney
Rick Dunham rating: Toss-up

Wisconsin
Lead: Obama +7.8
Compared to national average: Obama +3.8
Momentum over past week: Obama
Rick Dunham rating: Lean Obama

Spotlight state: Iowa ( unable to embed graphic. Please visit link at top of posting to view. )
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://charts.realclearpolitics.com/widget_embed.js?id=1922&width=450&height=338&key=iowa_romney_vs_obama"></script>

Numbers based on RealClearPolitics poll data compiled by Max Kranl of the Hearst Newspapers Washington bureau and analyzed by Rick Dunham. Our thanks to RealClearPolitics for the timelines.

[JackRiddler]

http://harpers.org/archive/2012/09/hbc-90008906

September 25, 3:18 PM, 2012 · Political Asylum · Previous · Next

Wall Street Places Its Election Bets

By Jack Hitt

Political Asylum is the Harpers.org 2012 election blog, written by contributing editors Kevin Baker and Jack Hitt.


Has Wall Street made up its mind on this election? One analyst, Jeffrey Kleintop, has divined just who the investment class believes will be president by developing one of those magic election-year metrics. (Double the price of a bag of groceries in St. Louis, divide by each candidate’s favorability rating in the Rust Belt, and voilà—the winner!) Kleintop’s Wall Street Election Year Index (.pdf) looks at specific stocks that are enjoying an uptick. The theory goes that a certain basket of stocks traditionally does better under Democratic presidents and a different basket does better under Republican presidents. Check to see which basket is doing better in the run-up to the election, and you know who Wall Street thinks will win.

This year’s mix is revealing. Kleintop believes a good hedge fund, confident in a win for Mitt Romney, would move its portfolios toward major segments of the energy sector. Conversely, since an unrepealed Affordable Care Act promises to bring in millions of new customers to the health care industry, one might expect a rise in stocks specializing in “health care facilities” and “health care services” in anticipation of an Obama win.

Kleintop says he not only looks at the top stocks, but also employs an algorithm that will “strip out and balance out the cyclicality,” as he told CNBC’s Jeff Macke earlier this summer. Checking the top five or ten health care and energy stocks on an anecdotal basis (and thus surrendering to the evils of cyclicality) reveals no demonstrable prediction from Wall Street. But according to Kleintop’s algorithm, another class of investments is also set to grow if Obama wins reelection—the one that encompasses “construction materials,” “homebuilding,” and “construction and farm machinery.” And here, the big portfolio managers seem to have shaken their Magic 8 balls and come up “Obama.”

I googled the top stocks in the category of construction materials, and what I saw was fascinating. Not only does Wall Street seem to be betting its portfolios on Obama, it would appear that its collective realization occurred during the ramp-up to the conventions, sometime in July. At that time, Wall Street started to see a rosy future in the construction sector—a view that seems to be prevailing, with the top stocks there surging from 20 to 50 percent a few weeks ago. Below are charts showing trends for the top ten construction-materials stocks. The jump is unmistakable—you don’t find a loser until you get to the tenth, Clarcor.

[Ten stock charts follow; see link.]

In Connecticut, where I live, there’s no hiding the fact that while the state at large might prefer Obama, the money—i.e., Fairfield County: Greenwich, Stamford, Cos Cob, suburban Bridgeport—has abandoned him this time around. In 2008, in the part of Bridgeport where the big funders live, Obama raised nearly $4.5 million, compared with $2.8 million for John McCain. This time, Obama has come away with just over $1 million, while Romney has gathered about $4 million.

A friend of mine recounted for me a luncheon for equity-fund managers a few days ago in New York, at which the host asked some 500 of Wall Street’s finest to use a private voting device to answer a few questions. “The MC asked us to vote on who we WANT to win the election,” my friend wrote. “53% of the room said they wanted Romney to win. Obama got 47%.”

Perhaps that vote by itself is news—47 percent of equity-fund managers prefer Obama? But then the MC asked who they thought would actually win. “Over 70% said Obama would,” said my friend.

So, while the leaders of our financial sector are betting their personal funds on Romney, they’re betting their portfolios on Obama. I guess they don’t call it hedging for nothing. Previous · Next


Founded in 1850. Subscriptions start at $16.97 a year.
© The Harper's Magazine Foundation. All rights reserved.

But here I think the hedge fund managers are themselves miscalculating. They're longing for another real estate bubble, obviously, and they think it's likelier with Obama. (It's ironic but if I've understood, their thinking seems to be that Obama is better for the "economy" on whose growth even they rely in some long term view, but Romney will keep their taxes lower and relieve them of the regulations they don't actually follow, so fuck the economy. Which would be the usual, right?) I think the whole thing's being held together by the Fed with spit and glue until November. With reluctant help lately from the IMF & ECB since we can't have Europe melting down and setting off the dominoes all the way back to New York. Not for another month yet. The good news is, the Mayan Calendar nonsense will have a comeback until Dec. 23, 24 or so.

So this is what I'm seeing. The super-rich, the upper classes, they're as Republican as ever, and also naturally gravitate to big old money (by American standards). The corporate executives at home, probably the same. The would-be billionaire controllers, yes of course. If Romney wasn't such a tool, his fundraising take would have far exceeded Obama's. But the systemic interests of the big corporations and the Federal Reserve have also voted, and they went for Obama.

.

[Lottie McLotsaluck]

It is interesting to see the factional dispute in progress and try to guess what might be happening.
Is it the Trilateralists against the neocons?
Big money against HUGE money?
I am sorry -just cant vote Obama again. Perhaps because I was an enthusiastic supporter in 2008 and actually believed some of the hype and bullshit?
I think the 'even worse' fascists will win by stealing the election.
I could be wrong as I have a record of 'less than chance' at predicting US elections!
One thing that has always confused me: Why do the majority of us run away from the Rand freakazoids when they start spouting their bilge-we are in the majority right?
I have never understood that and probably never will.
Organize Goddammit!
I edited the above sentence from fight to organize. I truly don't think violence will solve anything at this point *not that it ever does*besides making those of us on the left look 'terroristic' and I have already heard some grumble -grumble out there about 'those hippies with no jobs' protesting god forbid their right to not have everything that isn't already taken from given to those 1 percenters or .01 percenters -whatever. The 'no jobs' part would be a knee-slapper if it werent so sad.

Whatever the result of the election, I am getting more and more intrigued as to the winner. I do think we are looking at a real contest at some level. Those men on Romney's boat were not just there to support a loser -at the very least those folks think they are supporting a real fighter. Those people dont support "losers."
However, I agree with others on the forum who think Obama is the best figurehead the powers that be ever had and would be stupid to dump him. So what is the deal? The Koch, Coors, Anshutz, Walton types saying they want more vs a slightly more common sense group who don't want to push too far too fast? I will be monitoring this one closely from here on out.

[Lottie McLotsaluck]

Please God -NO!
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

If this happens, I think some percent of the ptb has gone for the 'civil war' option.
Reason being is that with electronic voting they have the ability to prevent a tie in the electoral college.

Many great Paul Ryan articles gathered here: http://thepaulryanwatch.blogspot.com/
fixed? (link)
another blog I like to check out for information about Romney: http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/
note that I dont necessarily agree a 100% with any blogger -well except Jeff

[Nordic]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ma/262861/

Why I Refuse to Vote for Barack Obama

The case against casting a ballot for the president -- even if you think he's better than Mitt Romney


Tell certain liberals and progressives that you can't bring yourself to vote for a candidate who opposes gay rights, or who doesn't believe in Darwinian evolution, and they'll nod along. Say that you'd never vote for a politician caught using the 'n'-word, even if you agreed with him on more policy issues than his opponent, and the vast majority of left-leaning Americans would understand. But these same people cannot conceive of how anyone can discern Mitt Romney's flaws, which I've chronicled in the course of the campaign, and still not vote for Obama.

Don't they see that Obama's transgressions are worse than any I've mentioned?

I don't see how anyone who confronts Obama's record with clear eyes can enthusiastically support him. I do understand how they might concluded that he is the lesser of two evils, and back him reluctantly, but I'd have thought more people on the left would regard a sustained assault on civil liberties and the ongoing, needless killing of innocent kids as deal-breakers.

Nope.

There are folks on the left who feel that way, of course. Some of them were protesting with the Occupy movement at the DNC. But the vast majority don't just continue supporting Obama. They can't even comprehend how anyone would decide differently. In a recent post, I excoriated the GOP and its conservative base for operating in a fantasy land with insufficient respect for empiricism or honest argument.

I ended the post with a one-line dig at the Democratic Party. "To hell with them both," I fumed.

Said a commenter, echoing an argument I hear all the time:

I mean, how can someone who just finished writing an article on how the Republican Party is too deluded, in the literal sense, to make good decisions about anything not prefer the other party?
Let me explain how.

I am not a purist. There is no such thing as a perfect political party, or a president who governs in accordance with one's every ethical judgment. But some actions are so ruinous to human rights, so destructive of the Constitution, and so contrary to basic morals that they are disqualifying. Most of you will go that far with me. If two candidates favored a return to slavery, or wanted to stone adulterers, you wouldn't cast your ballot for the one with the better position on health care. I am not equating President Obama with a slavery apologist or an Islamic fundamentalist. On one issue, torture, he issued an executive order against an immoral policy undertaken by his predecessor, and while torture opponents hoped for more, that is no small thing.

What I am saying is that Obama has done things that, while not comparable to a historic evil like chattel slavery, go far beyond my moral comfort zone. Everyone must define their own deal-breakers. Doing so is no easy task in this broken world. But this year isn't a close call for me.

I find Obama likable when I see him on TV. He is a caring husband and father, a thoughtful speaker, and possessed of an inspirational biography. On stage, as he smiles into the camera, using words to evoke some of the best sentiments within us, it's hard to believe certain facts about him:

Obama terrorizes innocent Pakistanis on an almost daily basis. The drone war he is waging in North Waziristan isn't "precise" or "surgical" as he would have Americans believe. It kills hundreds of innocents, including children. And for thousands of more innocents who live in the targeted communities, the drone war makes their lives into a nightmare worthy of dystopian novels. People are always afraid. Women cower in their homes. Children are kept out of school. The stress they endure gives them psychiatric disorders. Men are driven crazy by an inability to sleep as drones buzz overhead 24 hours a day, a deadly strike possible at any moment. At worst, this policy creates more terrorists than it kills; at best, America is ruining the lives of thousands of innocent people and killing hundreds of innocents for a small increase in safety from terrorists. It is a cowardly, immoral, and illegal policy, deliberately cloaked in opportunistic secrecy. And Democrats who believe that it is the most moral of all responsible policy alternatives are as misinformed and blinded by partisanship as any conservative ideologue.

Obama established one of the most reckless precedents imaginable: that any president can secretly order and oversee the extrajudicial killing of American citizens. Obama's kill list transgresses against the Constitution as egregiously as anything George W. Bush ever did. It is as radical an invocation of executive power as anything Dick Cheney championed. The fact that the Democrats rebelled against those men before enthusiastically supporting Obama is hackery every bit as blatant and shameful as anything any talk radio host has done.

Contrary to his own previously stated understanding of what the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution demand, President Obama committed U.S. forces to war in Libya without Congressional approval, despite the lack of anything like an imminent threat to national security.

In different ways, each of these transgressions run contrary to candidate Obama's 2008 campaign. (To cite just one more example among many, Obama has done more than any modern executive to wage war on whistleblowers. In fact, under Obama, Bush-era lawbreakers, including literal torturers, have been subject to fewer and less draconian attempts at punishment them than some of the people who conscientiously came forward to report on their misdeeds.) Obama ran in the proud American tradition of reformers taking office when wartime excesses threatened to permanently change the nature of the country. But instead of ending those excesses, protecting civil liberties, rolling back executive power, and reasserting core American values, Obama acted contrary to his mandate. The particulars of his actions are disqualifying in themselves. But taken together, they put us on a course where policies Democrats once viewed as radical post-9/11 excesses are made permanent parts of American life.

...........

What about the assertion that Romney will be even worse than Obama has been on these issues? It is quite possible, though not nearly as inevitable as Democrats seem to think. It isn't as though they accurately predicted the abysmal behavior of Obama during his first term, after all. And how do you get worse than having set a precedent for the extrajudicial assassination of American citizens? By actually carrying out such a killing? Obama did that too. Would Romney? I honestly don't know. I can imagine he'd kill more Americans without trial and in secret, or that he wouldn't kill any. I can imagine that he'd kill more innocent Pakistani kids or fewer. His rhetoric suggests he would be worse. I agree with that. Then again, Romney revels in bellicosity; Obama soothes with rhetoric and kills people in secret.

To hell with them both.

Sometimes a policy is so reckless or immoral that supporting its backer as "the lesser of two evils" is unacceptable. If enough people start refusing to support any candidate who needlessly terrorizes innocents, perpetrates radical assaults on civil liberties, goes to war without Congress, or persecutes whistleblowers, among other misdeeds, post-9/11 excesses will be reined in.

If not?

So long as voters let the bipartisan consensus on these questions stand, we keep going farther down this road, America having been successfully provoked by Osama bin Laden into abandoning our values.

We tortured.

We started spying without warrants on our own citizens.

We detain indefinitely without trial or public presentation of evidence.

We continue drone strikes knowing they'll kill innocents, and without knowing that they'll make us safer.

Is anyone looking beyond 2012?

The future I hope for, where these actions are deal-breakers in at least one party (I don't care which), requires some beginning, some small number of voters to say, "These things I cannot support."

Are these issues important enough to justify a stand like that?

I think so.

I can respect the position that the tactical calculus I've laid out is somehow mistaken, though I tire of it being dismissed as if so obviously wrong that no argument need be marshaled against it. I am hardly the first to think that humans should sometimes "act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." I am hardly the first to recommend being the change you want to see. I can respect counterarguments, especially when advanced by utilitarians who have no deal-breakers of their own. But if you're a Democrat who has affirmed that you'd never vote for an opponent of gay equality, or a torturer, or someone caught using racial slurs, how can you vote for the guy who orders drone strikes that kill hundreds of innocents and terrorizes thousands more -- and who constantly hides the ugliest realities of his policy (while bragging about the terrorists it kills) so that Americans won't even have all the information sufficient to debate the matter for themselves?

How can you vilify Romney as a heartless plutocrat unfit for the presidency, and then enthusiastically recommend a guy who held Bradley Manning in solitary and killed a 16-year-old American kid? If you're a utilitarian who plans to vote for Obama, better to mournfully acknowledge that you regard him as the lesser of two evils, with all that phrase denotes.

But I don't see many Obama supporters feeling as reluctant as the circumstances warrant.

The whole liberal conceit that Obama is a good, enlightened man, while his opponent is a malign, hard-hearted cretin, depends on constructing a reality where the lives of non-Americans -- along with the lives of some American Muslims and whistleblowers -- just aren't valued. Alternatively, the less savory parts of Obama's tenure can just be repeatedly disappeared from the narrative of his first term, as so many left-leaning journalists, uncomfortable confronting the depths of the man's transgressions, have done over and over again.

Keen on Obama's civil-libertarian message and reassertion of basic American values, I supported him in 2008. Today I would feel ashamed to associate myself with his first term or the likely course of his second. I refuse to vote for Barack Obama. Have you any deal-breakers?

How is this not among them?

[Lottie McLotsaluck]

Thanks for the link to the Johnson article Nordic!
In the general population, I think a huge amount of Obama's appeal is that you look at him and just can't imagine him doing the stuff he does; most people don't dig for information out there and it wouldn't surprise me if 95 percent of the people in the USA even know about the drone strikes, could place Pakistan/Waziristan on a map or the efffect these have on creating what we are supposedly trying to get rid of!
Compare Obama to someone like Nixon or Lyndon Johnson and he comes out looking like a kitty in a tiger den, as far as what someone might think them capable of -I think so anyway. Obama somewhat shares this 'friendly' force-field emission thing with R Reagan -although Obama is the cool older brother to Reagans square, out-of-it grandpa.
Strange days ahead indeed-sad ones too!