Book of the Month

A few Essays on the Wonderful Political Process and the Great Results

by A Guy Called LULU 10/10/2012 - 6:46 pm

1st: October 10, 2012 "Rolling Stone" -- Well, it's over. Or almost over, thank God. It looks like Obama will probably win, which I guess is good news, compared to the alternative – a Mitt Romney presidency would have felt like four straight years of waking up with a naked Lloyd Blankfein sitting on your face. But it's not so much the result that matters – it's the quiet.

Read the full article at http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-hype-became-bigger-than-the-presidential-election-20121009

 And after we choose our side we don't let this sort of news affect us like it did in the evil Bush past.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/series/glenn-greenwald-security-...

If there is anything incorrect in the essential argument made in this essay I hope to learn it.

by A Guy Called LULU 10/10/2012 - 6:51 pm

That this has not exactly been a stellar campaign--yep

That Romney is incoherent--yep

That there is no difference between what Romney is proposing on foreign policy and what Obama has been doing--I haven't been bird-dogging everything Romney may have said on foreign policy, but that might be accurate.  

That there would likely be no significant difference between a Romney and an Obama foreign policy--no, at least I don't see that as a solid assertion.  Romney's stable of foreign policy advisors include a whole buncha folks who just cannot get up in the morning if there isn't some war (referring to a conventional or sustained guerilla war, not the drone war Obama has been waging and that Romney would continue) out there that they can send our soldiers off to fight.

No difference on SS and Medicare positions.  Obama has me nervous as hell that he is going to go for a grand bargain during the lameduck Congressional session, win or lose.  This would require that the Republicans agree to new revenues.  Which would be a radical break from what has been a core position for them in recent years.  However, if they want to make the argument to their base that a one-time concession on this point was necessary to set in motion the destruction of SS and Medicare...well, perhaps they'd do it.  There is another interpretation--that Obama is bluffing them with both the belief and the hope they don't put new revenues on the table, giving him the excuse to walk away without SS or Medicare cuts but looking like he's been "flexible" and "serious" on reducing the deficit.  I think it's a really dangerous bluff to play. If he does go through with that during the lameduck session, then, depending on what Democrats in Congress do, I'll be reconsidering my political commitments in a more serious way than at any time since I became politically active some 30+ years ago.    Not that it matters...but that is not a bluff.

That, therefore, based on the article, there are no differences of any significance between the candidates.  No.  SCOTUS appointments, aforementioned judged likelihood of more wars, policies affecting women and gays/lesbians, whether we try to implement and build on Obamacare or repeal and do nothing or adopt something that might do away with the mandate but would also do away with the pre-existing conditions protections, etc.    

My two pennies, anyway.  On the main point of how collectively deadening this campaign and the coverage of it has been...no disagreement from me on that.

Thanks for the links.

 

by AmericanDreamer 10/10/2012 - 10:20 pm (re: A Guy Called LULU)

Thanks for the thoughtful response. On foreign policy issues it seems the relevant question regarding differences always comes down to who will be most boisterous, most likely to use threats and/or outright aggression to advance their their idea of American interests. The winning electoral tactic always seems to be the most aggressive, most belligerant, most simplistic one. Never a possible change in our philosophy. The ideas around ways and means seems quite similar, their trajectory much the same, but I agree that Romney seems more likely to go further and quicker towards military confrontation. As you say, the people he chooses to consult with have a record.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrC2pFaaR70

Obama too is establishing a record and I agree with Greenwald's criticisms of that record. It is hard to swallow the fact that he, Obama, is [probably] the lesser of two evils available to choose from.   
 How important the difference between a fifty percent chance of going to war might be against a sixty percent chance is hard to say because war has the possibility of being contained geographically and in magnitude but it could explode into something truly horrific on a very large scale. I would vote for the smaller chance which is a difference favoring Obama even though I am far from being a fan of his policies overall and am strongly offended and strongly cautioned by some of his actions.
 The appointment of the next batch of Supremes as well as other high ranking judge-ships is the main very clear difference I see. The other being women's rights but the right Supremes, as opposed to right-wing Supremes, are probably the most important aspect of protecting and advancing that area of concern.

by A Guy Called LULU 10/11/2012 - 2:41 pm (re: AmericanDreamer)

This one is pretty interesting because any conclusion must be purely speculative unless you think there is any justifiable reason to believe what your elected government has told you about it.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/10/whatever-happened-to-that-iranian...

by A Guy Called LULU 10/10/2012 - 6:56 pm

Thanks LULU.  Taibbi is dead on.  I can't recall the horse race dimension of the election ever being this insane before: up to the hour micro poll-watching, making people sick and disturbed all the time.

by Dan Kervick 10/10/2012 - 9:42 pm

Latest Comments

more