The 2012 "Election" thread

[Iamwhomiam]

I tend to feel that people will be in the streets come spring regardless of which character is elected. The radical right if O retains the throne and the occupier leftists if R's elected.

Of course, the good professor just couldn't be a messenger hired to influence anyone to vote one way or the other...

[Hammer of Los]

...

You're a smart guy, Iamwhomiam.

I bow to thee.

...

[JackRiddler]

Yeah, I figured someone was going to post the Pollack article.

It will come as no surprise I consider it highly illogical.

Everything charged against Romney may be true, from Social Darwinist beliefs and gut-militarism to cultural intolerance and xenophobia, and perhaps even more so for the party as a whole, though that is a moot point–an overt negation, on all grounds,of what we mean by democracy. (Not that America has honored or achieved that state of political-economic development through most of its history!)

And the "Trotsky" theory is that by handing over the full powers and majesty of the state to this "overt negation, on all grounds, of what we mean by democracy," we will be creating an opportunity for the left?!

This thinking always struck me as bizarre.

Aren't THEY going to use this opportunity of power over the executive to strengthen themselves, if they can?

Are they going to do nothing with it? Are they going to spend the four years hungover from their nationwide victory party?

But let's try a metaphor.

We're all driving over a cliff and we're almost all in denial about it. A minority of good people on the left want to end this denial! Therefore, they should allow the craziest person on the bus -- the one who promises to floor the gas -- to be the new driver! This is supposed to work because, as soon as the craziest has the wheel, everyone else in the car will wake up and mobilize to evict him!

Seize that wheel, people!

And it's bullshit. How did that work out with Nixon? Reagan? Bush the Second? The last is especially instructive. By the time our ultimately powerless protests were out in large numbers on the street, in 2003, Iraq was already a done deal, and we got to see nothing but losses for the first six years of the regime. This defeat is what set us up for cooptation by Obama. People were so fucking demoralized after the Bush years, they were ready for slight change.

The brazen stealing of the 2000 election and then 9/11 knocked out the left altogether for two years, and its comeback after 2003 may have looked large but was servile and conditioned. Gone was the anti-capitalist energy of Seattle. (And it first came back under... Obama!)

And servile doesn't even begin to describe the utter collaboration among the Democrats in the face of the Bush victories.

Where does anyone get this idea that victories and seizure of the state by the worst people will magically mobilize a leftist revolution?

It's not from empirical observation, I can tell you!

By contrast, Obama is unassailable, enjoying the protective cloak of the state secrets doctrine (which, also as the National Security State, he invokes constantly), the liberal glossing on all policy matters, thanks to the extremely able spinmeisters Axelrod and Rhodes, and an adoring, submissive, uncritical base, in deep denial and for whatever reasons unwilling to examine the administration’s record.

This nonsense about "adoring, submissive, uncritical" is a right-wing stereotype, and I find it pretty disgusting. The yahoos are running around talking about Mexicans taking over the country and entitled blacks and the lazy 47 percent and the traitorous slut liberals. They're aching to return to official power so that they can have a new round of radical advances for their ideas, which is what happened under Bush. And part of their schtick is that Obama's "base" is all hypnotized and stupid. It is incredibly insulting, given the reality of the right-wing mentality in this country.

People mostly choose what they consider to be the best option within the constraints they perceive. Mostly with eyes open.

That record confirms the long-term political, economic, and moral bankruptcy of the Democratic party, whose differentiating character setting it apart from the Republicans lies in the magnitude of skilled evasion and/or deception surrounding policies which themselves replicate the central elements in those of their opponents.

How much more or worse damage can Romney and the Republicans do? They might fuss about same-sex marriage and contraception,

Spoken by someone who is clearly not a woman, and, if gay, unlikely to be too proud of it. His is almost certainly neither black, nor an immigrant, nor a person dependent on state-funded assistance. Fuss you, Professor.

while Obama, in his Pacific-first geopolitical vision and concrete strategy, wants to encircle China, and press for an economic agenda promoting further corporate-wealth concentration.

Absolutely insane. Romney is promising a war with Iran. This guy wants PNAC-plus as an alternative to PNAC lite. And he thinks the knowledge that we are in a MINORITY is going to strengthen the left opposition.

If Republicans come across as Taliban on cultural issues, Democrats almost surreptitiously advance the financialization of the total economy,

As opposed to? Let's advance it OPENLY, more radically, and with PRIDE, damn it! Because this is going to mobilize totally effective left protests, just you watch.

with the consequent distortions introduced–loss of manufacturing, increasing wealth concentration, and capitalism’s Achilles heel, underconsumption.

All of which always happens more radically under Republican admins.

[b]Why Romney? Because his transparency as a Neanderthal may, just may, bring people into the streets, while under Obama passivity and false consciousness appear almost irreversible. I for one will stay home. The lesser-of-two-evils argument is morally obtuse, and dangerous, the first, because it means complicity

Bullshit. Staying at home to pay your taxes, consume and drive your car around makes you MORE complicit than any vote. Every day we show more complicity just by being normal cogs in this society than we will in a lifetime of elections.

with policies ultimately destructive, the second, because it induces an undeserved self-righteousness which next time around would yield further compromise.

Says the boss of undeserved self-righteousness - the guy who just called the Obama supporters all hypnotized sheep. Oh here it comes again:

If the people are gulled and lulled into the acceptance of mock-democracy,

Then obviously BIGGER steps to fascism are needed! This worked very well in 1930s Germany! A total win for the real left.

.

[Bruce Dazzling]

[Belligerent Savant]

^^^^^^ that video quite succinctly sums it all up, doesn't it?

Questions/agenda prepared in advance by each candidate's campaign team.
Exclusion of participation by other parties.

Quite telling also how often both 'Bama and Mitt essentially agreed with each other on many points, so much so that Lehrer had to specifically call out the occasions where there were apparent differences in agendas.

For those willing to waste away moments of their lives, take a gander at the transcript:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012 ... =8bc095c7f

Here's just a couple snippets -- explicit references to "differences":

JIM LEHRER
All right. What is the difference?

Can we -- can the two of you agree that the voters have a choice, a clear choice between the two of you...

All right, I think we have another clear difference between the two of you. Now let's move to health care, where I know there is a clear difference -- (laughter) -- and that has to do with the Affordable Care Act, "Obamacare."

Do you believe -- both of you -- but you have the first two minutes on this, Mr. President -- do you believe there's a fundamental difference between the two of you as to how you view the mission of the federal government?

Of course, there are some clear differences between the 2 -- we dare not say otherwise... hence the arguments put forth by some here to vote for the 'Bama over the Mitt; the continuing debate over the lesser of 2 evils.

Regardless, there continues to be some attempts by outside parties to participate in this farce:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... 0506.story

Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson earlier this month filed a lawsuit against the Commission on Presidential Debates, claiming that the organization’s practices violate antitrust laws and alleging collusion between the commission and the country’s two dominant political parties.

In the suit, Johnson and his campaign accuse the commission, along with the Republican and Democratic national committees, of a “conspiracy” to meet in secret and create the rules for the debates, excluding third-party candidates and participating in what the lawsuit contends is a “restraint of trade” violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

The CPD has been attacked before for its stance toward lesser-known nominees, most prominently in 2000 for its decision to exclude third-party candidates from even being members of the audience at the debates. Green Party candidate Ralph Nader sued the commission for allegedly violating the Federal Election Campaign Act. Nader’s contention that the CPD violated the law’s stipulation that it not “endorse, support or oppose political candidates or political parties,” was eventually shot down by a D.C. Circuit Court in 2005.

Here's another link to a visually archaic site -- which sadly goes a long way towards revealing the outcome of their efforts, apparently put together by a group of idealists hoping for 3rd party representation in the 2004 Presidential debates:

http://www.debatethis.org/

From 1976 through 1984 the televised presidential debates were organized by the non-partisan League of Women Voters until the Republican and Democratic parties decided to control the debates themselves. In 1987 the bi-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was formed – a private entity run by former chairmen of the Republican and Democratic parties. Each election cycle the two campaigns negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding which the CPD follows. Bill Moyer's NOW has a link to the 2004 MOU (the first one to be made public).

The CPD's candidate selection criteria are exclusionary since they require that candidates average at least 15% support in 5 national polls. This makes it very difficult for any 3rd parties to get their views heard in the debates. It also keeps the debates limited to two candidates who are very similar on all but a handful of issues. The two major parties agree on many important issues such as "free" trade agreements and corporate globalization. This is just fine with the major corporations who sponsor the debates.

After democracy advocates repeatedly tried and failed to persuade the CPD to open its events (even with two candidates who large majorities of the public wanted to see debate in 2000), it became imperative to replace the anti-democratic CPD.

Legal action against the Commission on Presidential Debates:

5/5/2004 3rd Party Candidates Sue the FEC for Failing to Act on their Complaint
6/17/2003 3rd Party Candidates File Complaint Against the CPD
In 2004, a wide range of civic groups formed the Citizens' Debate Commission to return control of the debates to an independent, nonpartisan body that serves the public, not private interest.
How should inclusion in the presidential debates be determined?

Here are some options:
"1. register at 5 percent in national public opinion polls; OR 2. Register a majority (50 percent or more) in national public opinion polls asking eligible voters which candidates they would like to see included in the presidential debates." (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting)
"With over one hundred declared presidential candidates in 2000, limiting the number of debate participants was mandatory. But simply requiring that candidates appear on enough state ballots to have a mathematical chance to win is an appropriate standard for the first debate of each general election. This typically would yield from four to seven candidates--a number easily managed by the major parties in their own primary debates. After an initial debate, the field could be narrowed fairly with more stringent criteria." (Reclaim Democracy)

[Iamwhomiam]

Why Romney? Because his transparency as a Neanderthal may, just may, bring people into the streets, while under Obama passivity and false consciousness appear almost irreversible. I for one will stay home. The lesser-of-two-evils argument is morally obtuse, and dangerous, the first, because it means complicity

Right, Jack. And what happens when people hit the streets? Cops practice their head-busting skills and blood flows. Constriction, concussion & cattle cars.

Simplistic, no?

[Luther Blissett]

thepeoplesrecord:
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism: Pakistan drone strikes visualized
1. Pakistan drone strikes: illustrating minimum reported total casualties, minimum reported civilian casualties and minimum casualties aged under 18. At least 905 people were killed in Pakistan by US drone strikes in 2010.
2. This graph illustrates the minimum reported civilians killed in drone strikes in Pakistan year by year. At least 474 reported civilian deaths from 2004 to 2012.
However, it should be noted that President Obama redefined the word “militant” as a male of military fighting age in an attempt to keep reported civilian death numbers low. Although 474 reported civilian deaths aren’t meaningless, this number does not include deaths reported as “militant” deaths; the civilian rate is much higher.
3. This graph shows the total number of people reportedly killed in CIA drone strikes in Pakistan - at least 2593 reported.
4.This graph shows the tally of total drone strikes in Pakistan between 2004 – 2012.
Source
File under: figures not talked about during presidential or vice presidential debates.

[ninakat]

The 2012 US Presidential “Non-election”: Which Brand of “Fascism” this Time?
No matter who “wins”, humanity loses.
By Larry Chin
Global Research, October 14, 2012

Every four years, the deck chairs of the political Titanic that is the American empire get rearranged in the choreographed spectacle of another presidential “election”. The 2012 charade is particularly disgusting; the lies more blatant and shrill, as the world continues to burn.

It is critical to focus on the cold, ugly reality facing the world with either prospective White House occupant.

On one side, the Obama administration, and the traditional brand of neoliberal imperialism and international consensus, and false domestic populism. On the other side with Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, militant right-wing extremism, an apocalyptic war agenda and the politics of sadism at home.

The interests of the elite (Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberger, etc.) is dutifully served with either Obama or Romney in the White House. The question for the elite is purely over style and execution.

Obama has been a servile facilitator and protector of the political establishment; an insidious capitulator and “consensus man”. For Wall Street’s billionaires, the Pentagon’s warmongers, and Washington’s most shamelessly corrupt, there has been no greater gift than Obama and his presidency. But with Romney and Ryan, the agenda simply speeds up and destroys faster, more violently, with true theocratic maniacal fervor.

The final choice will not be made by voters (who will be disenfranchised again, via electronic vote fraud and other manipulations), but by the criminal elements who seize final control of the apparatus over the final month of the “contest”.

The “children” are being allowed to fight it out amongst themselves. The side with ultimate command of the corporate media propaganda, the most effective back door deals, and the most effective dirty tricks and election night shenanigans, will prevail, the pre-determined result promptly encrypted into the software of controlled Diebold voting machines.

The Debate Charade

It is tempting but futile to dissect the theatrics of the debates, which are based on entirely on false premises to begin with. Not one exhaustively argued “talking point” addresses realities.

The carefully pre-selected issues assume a host of falsehoods, from the legitimacy of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the destabilizations of Iran and Syria, to the need for fiscal austerity.

These are rhetorical dog-and-pony shows without real differences, beyond timing, style, and method, by which they will execute similar agendas.

Both sides largely agree on foreign policy. Both sides proudly trumpet how best to inflict crippling economic warfare on “nuclear Iran”, and topple Syria. The only argument is whether the sequential multinational stranglehold (“diplomacy”) led by the Obama administration continues apace, or, if Romney/Ryan and the right will get what they really want: an all-out war with Iran.

Both sides agree on the same falsehoods regarding the national debt (without mentioning that the world war that they enthusiastically wage is the main expenditure) and the US financial crisis (ignoring the fact that the financial “crisis” and “bailout” was a manipulation that centralized the power for Wall Street constituents, the big banks, who support both sides equally, at the expense of US taxpayers). In terms of social programs (that will be cut in any case in order to pay for more war), the Romney/Ryan contingent calls for an immediate destruction of the entire social structure of the US—a swift draconian end to social programs such as Medicare and Social Security—while the Obama administration takes a more gradual approach.

Essentially, the candidates have already admitted that they do not serve the interests of most of humanity.

The media “analysis” of the election has been stomach-turning— nothing more than insanity heaped atop insanity. The chattering of talking heads over infantile nonsense, such as “who looks presidential”, who got more “gotchas” and “zingers”. A dumbed-down spectacle for a dumbed-down, manipulated populace.

Was Libya a Right-wing October Surprise?

One genuine point of friction between the Obama and Romney/Ryan camps is the Libyan terror attack of 9/11/12.

The attack, including the assassination of Ambassador Christopher Stevens was carried out by the Al-Qaeda “freedom fighters” that helped the US overthrow the regime of Muammar Qaddafi. These assets are closely linked to American neoconservatives, including a large contingent of figures behind the Bush/Cheney apparatus

There is little doubt that it was a false flag operation. The question remains, what high ranking Washington figures were involved. Who benefits?

Was it an October Surprise on the part of the right wing to humiliate the Obama administration, and steal the election, or an incident that was part of a larger bipartisan consensus agenda?

New reports from Salon of the coordinated activities of the American criminal right-wing and the Romney/Ryan camp, including gloating and “chortling” by high ranking Republicans that the attacks have turned Obama “into Jimmy Carter”: GOP’s October Surprise.

The timing of the attack and the Obama administration’s flummoxed reactions also suggest that they were caught off guard. Although it is true that the “war on terrorism” gets a boost in any case (there will be ramped up “anti-terrorism” in the wake of the incident), the Obama camp does not benefit politically from appearing to be vulnerable, disorganized and “weak”, ahead of an election. But the Romney/Ryan camp, which will do anything to gain power, very clearly benefits.

The right-wing (exemplified by the such criminals as the malodorous and corrupt Mitch McConnell) has treasonously sabotaged the Obama administration from the minute Obama took the oath.

Romney and Ryan are certainly playing Libya it to the hilt, noisily igniting scandal. They seek to ride the momentum of their attacks, all the way to a victory, with the help of vicious right-wing elements in Congress.

Who is investigating the right-wingers who were “chortling” about it?

It must be remembered that such October Surprises have occurred before. Right-wing Republicans have always been the culprits.

Bottom line: a terror attack, the murder of a US diplomat, and an international flashpoint are being exploited for political gain in Washington.

Romney/Ryan: Bush/Cheney on Steroids

To know what a Romney/Ryan presidency promises, simply consider some of the dangerous ultra-hawk war criminals and unsavory individuals who are advising the ticket.

Its team of foreign policy advisers is a wall to wall cast of Bush/Cheney war criminals:

Dan Senor- former leader of the Iraq provisional authority

Cofer Black-former CIA official, vice chairman of Blackwater USA

John Bolton- former Bush/Cheney US ambassador

Eliot Cohen- Project for New American Century (PNAC), Dick Cheney aide

Walid Phares- “scholar” on “anti-terrorism”; Lebanese Christian with ties to violent Lebanese militia

Michael Hayden- Bush/Cheney CIA and NSA director

Max Boot- senior CFR fellow, PNAC

Eric Edelman- former Dick Cheney aide

The ticket’s economic advisers are led by the Paul Ryan himself, “Lyin’ Ryan” the destroyer, along with the following leftovers from Bush/Cheney:

Glenn Hubbard- Bush/Cheney council of economic advisors

Gregory Mankiw- Bush/Cheney council of economic advisors

Vin Weber- lobbyist, former Republican member of Congress

Jim Talent- lobbyist connected to Jack Abramoff

Kevin Hassett- former aide to Bush/Cheney

This list speaks for itself, as does “Etch-a-Sketch” Romney’s background as a Wall Street manipulator and “Lyin” Ryan’s fanaticism. Expect saber-rattling, violent rhetoric, rabid attacks against nations from those in the Arab world to China and Russia, and irrational behavior to blossom in the weeks ahead.

Media Cheerleading

Judging from the narrative that is being created out of the presidential and vice presidential debates so far, it is clear which side the establishment favors more. The right-wing elements dominate American society and its media. There is no “liberal media”. The right-wing also controls the voting machines.

The right-wing is foaming at the mouth for a Romney/Ryan Republican win. This explains why Romney and Ryan can do no wrong in any mainstream media coverage. They can say or do anything, tell any lie, while the Obama administration “loses—even when they “win”, and no matter what they attempt.

Romney and Ryan, and their minions, have spouted treasonous rhetoric, and have not been stopped.

This is identical to the astounding free passes that Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush received on their way to White House power. It is happening again.

Which way to the abyss?

There have never been real elections in contemporary America, and there will be no “election” this time either. There will, as always, be no real choice: war-mongering, mass-murdering imperialist “A” or war-mongering mass-murdering imperialist “B”.

America and the world must pay attention to which brand of fascism will ultimately be chosen, if only to properly prepare for what is to come. The marginal differences in method and style have ramifications, domestically and globally.

The quelling of increasingly large swaths of humanity is more important to the elite than ever before. The next White House occupant will spearhead the likely UN and NATO regime changes for Syria and Iran, both of which have been systematically destabilized by the CIA and its affiliates, and the “reconstruction” of the American social net.

Will it be more of the fist inside the velvet glove, or the hammer directly to the skull?

No matter who “wins”, humanity loses.

[ninakat]

Will H.I.G.-owned e-voting machines give Romney the White House?
by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman
October 12, 2012
Electronic voting machines owned by Mitt Romney's business buddies and set to count the votes in Cincinnati could decide the 2012 election.

The narrative is already being hyped by the corporate media. As Kelly O'Donnell reported for NBC's Today Show on Monday, October 8, Ohio's Hamilton County is "ground zero" for deciding who holds the White House come January, 2013.

O'Donnell pointed out that no candidate has won the White House without carrying Ohio since John Kennedy did it in 1960. No Republican has EVER won the White House without Ohio's electoral votes.

As we document in the e-book WILL THE GOP STEAL AMERICA'S 2012 ELECTION (www.freepress.org) George W. Bush got a second term in 2004 thanks to the manipulation of the electronic vote count by Ohio's then-Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell. Blackwell served as the co-chair of the state's committee to re-elect Bush/Cheney while simultaneously administering the election.

The widespread use of electronic voting machines from ES&S, and of Diebold software maintained by Triad, allowed Blackwell to electronically flip a 4% Kerry lead to a 2% Bush victory in the dead of election night. ES&S, Diebold and Triad were all owned or operated by Republican partisans. The shift of more than 300,000 votes after 12:20 am election night was a virtual statistical impossibility. It was engineered by Michael Connell, an IT specialist long affiliated with the Bush Family. Blackwell gave Connell's Ohio-based GovTech the contract to count Ohio's votes, which was done on servers housed in the Old Pioneer Bank Building in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Thus the Ohio vote tally was done on servers that also carried the e-mail for Karl Rove and the national Republican Party. Connell died in a mysterious plane crash in December, 2008, after being subpoenaed in the King-Lincoln-Bronzeville federal lawsuit focused on how the 2004 election was decided (disclosure: we were attorney and plaintiff in that suit).

Diebold's founder, Walden O'Dell, had vowed to deliver Ohio's electoral votes---and thus the presidency---to his friend George W. Bush. That it was done in part on electronic voting machines and software O'Dell happened to own (Diebold has since changed hands twice) remains a cautionary red flag for those who believe merely winning the popular vote will give Barack Obama a second term.

This November, much of the Ohio electorate will cast its ballots on machines again owned by close cronies of the Republican presidential candidate. In Cincinnati and elsewhere around the state, the e-voting apparati are owned by Hart Intercivic. Hart's machines are infamous for mechanical failures, "glitches," counting errors and other timely problems now thoroughly identified with the way Republicans steal elections. As in 2004, Ohio's governor is now a Republican. This time it's the very right-wing John Kasich, himself a multi-millionaire courtesy of a stint at Lehman Brothers selling state bonds, and the largesse of Rupert Murdoch, on whose Fox Network Kasich served as a late night bloviator. Murdoch wrote Kasich a game-changing $1 million check just prior to his winning the statehouse, an electoral victory shrouded in electronic intrigue. The exit polls in that election indicated that his opponent, incumbent Democrat Ted Strickland, had actually won the popular vote.

Ohio's very Republican Secretary of State is John Husted, currently suing in the US Supreme Court to prevent the public from voting on the weekend prior to election day. As did Blackwell and Governor Robert Taft in 2004, Husted and Kasich will control Ohio's electronic vote count on election night free of meaningful public checks or balances

Hart Intercivic, on whose machines the key votes will be cast in Hamilton County, which includes Cincinnati, was taken over last year by H.I.G. Capital. Prominent partners and directors on the H.I.G. board hail from Bain Company or Bain Capital, both connected to Mitt Romney. H.I.G. employees have contributed at least $338,000 to Romney's campaign. H.I.G. Directors John P. Bolduk and Douglas Berman are major Romney fundraisers, as is former Bain and H.I.G. manager Brian Shortsleeve.

US courts have consistently ruled that the software in electronic voting machines is proprietary to the manufacturer, even though individual election boards may own the actual machines. Thus there will be no vote count transparency on election night in Ohio. The tally will be conducted by Hart Intercivic and controlled by Husted and Kasich, with no public recourse or accountability. As federal testimony from the deceased Michael Connell made clear in 2008, electronically flipping an election is relatively cheap and easy to do, especially if you or your compatriots programmed the machines.

So as the corporate media swarm through Ohio, reporting breathlessly from "ground zero" in Cincinnati, don't hold your own breath waiting for them to also clarify that the voting machines in what may once again be America's decisive swing state are owned, programmed and tabulated by some of the Romney campaign's closest associates.

--
Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman are co-authors of WILL THE GOP STEAL AMERICA'S 2012 ELECTION?, an e-book.

[JackRiddler]

(Iraq Body Count = Fraction of actual deaths)

[JackRiddler]

Why Romney? Because his transparency as a Neanderthal may, just may, bring people into the streets, while under Obama passivity and false consciousness appear almost irreversible. I for one will stay home. The lesser-of-two-evils argument is morally obtuse, and dangerous, the first, because it means complicity

Right, Jack. And what happens when people hit the streets? Cops practice their head-busting skills and blood flows. Constriction, concussion & cattle cars.

Simplistic, no?

Well, again, the premise is untrue. People will hit the street in 2 or 3 years. The first effect of Republican victory will be a demobilization.

Everyone's still stuck on the dirtiness of both possible winners, and ignoring the overall effects of one result as opposed to the other. We are so hung up on (justifiable) hatred of the top political figures that we're in denial about how one result energizes the worst, most regressive and reactionary elements in the country to do their absolute worst, locally and nationally. They will be triumphant and on the move in the state houses, in the cities, at the corporations and the banks, at the schools, at the Pentagon and among the spooks. They will be the ones gathering in the street. They'll be rooting for a big war! It's like we're longing for the biggest counter-populist reaction since Nixon (Reagan was much more a top-down affair, as befits Hollywood). With Obama you got a legalization of the Bush criminal government. With Bush you got 9/11 the enabling event for new big wars and as a revolutionary advance in criminal government.

Nothing will ever change in this country from within as long as the right-wing ideas are ascendant or on equal footing with the rest of society combined. You will get the same shit over and over. Not because the elections are a scam of the duopoly and defined by their shared corporatism, which is true. But because right-wing politics define all agendas.

[compared2what?]

(Iraq Body Count = Fraction of actual deaths)

It's insane that you had to post that as if it wouldn't be self-evident to anyone who spent five minutes looking at an "Obama-Romney On the Issues 2012" chart that a Romney victory would result in more civilian deaths than an Obama victory would.

....

Is it the baby-killing drones? Is that it? Because if it is, I'm against them, too. But we are supposed to be hip to psyops here, aren't we? So let's review how the American right has sought to get the populace on its side for one or two issues here and there over the last several decades, shall we?

Abortion? Called women who have them baby-killers.

Iraq v.1.0? Called Saddam Hussein a baby-killer.

Phyllis Schlafly's anti-vaxxers? Called Paul Offit a baby killer.

________________

If I weren't in a hurry, I'm sure I could think of a few more, too. But you get the point. Do you really think that Sheldon Adleson's apparatchiks at the GOP Online Oppo House of Memes aren't earning their millions seeding the goddamn web with "Obama is a BABY KILLER" posts in order to deliver all the non-votes by anti-Israel Arab lovers that he's paying them for?

Really?

Why not?

It was good enough for Hill & Knowlton.
__________________

Obama sucks. There is a fucking difference between what he's done/will do and what Romney and the return of the neocons are promising, however.

[lupercal]

(Iraq Body Count = Fraction of actual deaths)

It's insane that you had to post that as if it wouldn't be self-evident to anyone who spent five minutes looking at an "Obama-Romney On the Issues 2012" chart that a Romney victory would result in more civilian deaths than an Obama victory would.

....

Is it the baby-killing drones? Is that it? Because if it is, I'm against them, too. But we are supposed to be hip to psyops here, aren't we? So let's review how the American right has sought to get the populace on its side for one or two issues here and there over the last several decades, shall we?

Abortion? Called women who have them baby-killers.

Iraq v.1.0? Called Saddam Hussein a baby-killer.

Phyllis Schlafly's anti-vaxxers? Called Paul Offit a baby killer.

________________

If I weren't in a hurry, I'm sure I could think of a few more, too. But you get the point. Do you really think that Sheldon Adleson's apparatchiks at the GOP Online Oppo House of Memes aren't earning their millions seeding the goddamn web with "Obama is a BABY KILLER" posts in order to deliver all the non-votes by anti-Israel Arab lovers that he's paying them for?

Really?

Why not?

It was good enough for Hill & Knowlton.
__________________

Obama sucks. There is a fucking difference between what he's done/will do and what Romney and the return of the neocons are promising, however.

QFT! Agree with you 98% (higher opinion of Obama first term, otherwise same). Also: tomorrow night at 9/8/7/6 pm is Obama-Romney 2.0, which should be exciting for no other reason than the media apparatchiks have ginned up a horse-race where there was none, based on one dubiously decisive event out of a dozen serious game-changers over the last several weeks: Biden stapling Ryan's head to the floor for example, job numbers going up up and up, massive Dem ground game, serious poll movement in the senate races etc. But no, the polls emerging from Rove's butt by the dozen show it tied up or with Romney in the lead, all due to one stale debate and no response whatsoevery to anything else. I guess I'm supposed to believe 50 million people didn't watch Ryan disappear into his sippy cup last week?

Anyway here's the C-SPAN link again, in nice quote box:

http://www.c-span.org/Debates/

[justdrew]

[ninakat]

Yeah, I figured someone was going to post the Pollack article.

Yeah, someone had to post that.