i am a critic of government both republican and democrat On Sep 8, 11:04 am, Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mikey, > > You are very outspoken critic of the Bush administration, and with > good cause. The Bush administration is nothing more than a criminal > cabal of gangster’s thugs and war criminals. However you fail to apply > the same standards and objectivity when it comes to the Democrats and > Obama. > > Without listing a litany of transgressions, Obama supports the war on > terror. The war on terror is central to the Bush administrations > waging of preemptive imperialist wars in the Middle East. It is a > bogus, opened ended war that can be invoked indefinitely to justify > further military aggression by the US without provocation. > > Obama supports the breeching of Pakistani Sovereignty resulting in the > deaths of innocent civilians. Obama has supported the funding of the > war on the pretense of supporting the troops, when any rational person > knows bringing the troops home is the best support that can be > bestowed upon them. > > This alone makes Obama complicit in the heinous war crimes committed > by the Bush administration, along with most of his reprehensible > colleagues. > > Obama promises social reforms when he knows very well he cannot make > good these promises. The US is ostensibly bankrupt, surviving on the > influx of overseas investment that is rapidly drying up due to the > global economic crisis. The Fed cannot continue to bail out failing > banking institutions; it does not have infinite resources. > > This scenario is repeated in every industrialized country, as all so- > called workers parties due to economic conditions can NO longer grant > concessions to the working class and have swung sharply to the right > clawing back all the hard won concessions won by workers after WW2, > including the Dems. It was Clinton that lead the assault on the US > health care system. > > Economics and the demands of capital (big business) drive policy, not > the will of the masses. Ideology is just that, an ideal that needs the > right environment to be realized. This environment does not exist in > the current socio-economic set up. > > Regards Frank > > On Sep 8, 8:16 pm, mike532 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Sep. 07 > > electoral vote count > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Obama 301 McCain 224 Ties 13 > > Senate Dem 56 GOP 43 Ties 1 > > House Dem 243 GOP 192 > > > On Sep 8, 5:48 am, Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Obama’s lead in the polls crumbles as he turns sharply to the right > > > > 6th September > > > > Well before the announcement of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s > > > Presidential running mate, the Obama campaign had suffered a palpable > > > loss of political momentum which elaborate attempts at media stagecraft > > > —the candidate’s trip to the Middle East and Europe, the hype over the > > > vice-presidential selection process, the convention itself—have failed > > > to reverse. Polls show a tight race between Obama and his Republican > > > rival Senator John McCain, despite overwhelming popular hostility to > > > the Bush administration and the Republican Party. > > > > There has been complete silence in both the media and the Democratic > > > Party over the real source of this decline, which has little to do > > > with negative advertising or the supposed prowess of the Republican > > > “attack machine” or the effect of "wild card" Sarah Palin. In fact, > > > the falloff in backing for Obama is sharpest among those layers—the > > > young, self-described liberals, and those most hostile to the Iraq war > > > and the Bush administration—who were among his most enthusiastic > > > supporters in the primary campaign. > > > > Obama’s lead in the polls has crumbled as he turned sharply to the > > > right following his primary victory over Hillary Clinton. His campaign > > > faltered not because of a Republican media blitz—Obama continues to > > > greatly outspend McCain—but because of the Democratic candidate’s > > > demonstrative efforts to disassociate his campaign and prospective > > > presidency from any semblance of progressive change. > > > > The Democratic presidential nominee voted in the Senate for increased > > > wiretapping powers for the FBI and NSA, downplayed his past criticism > > > of the war in Iraq, positioned himself as the most fervent advocate of > > > military escalation in Afghanistan, and echoed the Bush > > > administration’s saber-rattling over the conflict between Russia and > > > Georgia. He said little about the continued deterioration of the US > > > economy, reiterated his support for fiscal austerity policies that > > > effectively rule out any significant program of social reform, and > > > prostrated himself before the religious right in a joint appearance > > > with McCain at a fundamentalist church. > > > > None of these positions came as a surprise to his most important > > > backers, billionaires like Warren Buffett and the Pritzker family > > > (Hyatt Hotels), other sections of the financial aristocracy and the > > > Democratic Party establishment. But Obama’s emergence as an utterly > > > conventional and conservative bourgeois politician—culminating in the > > > selection of Senator Joseph Biden, a 35-year veteran of Washington, as > > > his running mate—has deflated whatever there was of a popular > > > mobilization, however manipulated and misguided, behind his campaign. > > > > Obama was never the candidate of a genuine oppositional movement > > > against the political establishment. On the contrary, his candidacy > > > was carefully planned by a section of that establishment, disaffected > > > from the foreign policy of the Bush administration, particularly in > > > Iraq, and the support for it from Democratic congressional leaders > > > like Clinton and Biden. > > > > The Obama camp had no fundamental or principled differences with the > > > use of war as an instrument to secure the interests of US imperialism. > > > Its criticism of Bush was that he had waged war ineffectively and to a > > > certain extent needlessly, and that the administration’s obsessive > > > focus on Iraq had become a diversion from broader global concerns. > > > Equally important, by defining his principal difference with Clinton > > > in terms of her original vote to authorize the war in 2002, Obama was > > > able to make at least a limited appeal to antiwar sentiment, and > > > channel the mass opposition to the war back into the straitjacket of > > > the Democratic Party. > > > > The divisions over Iraq were of a tactical character. In the past > > > several months, however, a bipartisan consensus has emerged, embracing > > > virtually the entire political establishment, Democrat and Republican, > > > that the Bush administration escalation in Iraq has been a “success,” > > > and that the US occupation has been at least temporarily stabilized at > > > a level of violence acceptable to Washington (if not to the Iraqi > > > people themselves). > > > > Now that the positions of Obama and Clinton on Iraq have largely > > > converged with those of Bush and McCain, what accounts for the > > > seemingly intractable divisions in the Democratic Party itself? As the > > > WSWS explained during the primary voting, while political differences > > > over foreign policy provided the initial impetus for Obama’s challenge > > > to the presumptive frontrunner, the Obama-Clinton contest began to > > > split the Democratic Party along race and gender lines. > > > > This was not merely due to the fact that the two finalists were the > > > first African-American and the first woman with a significant chance > > > of winning the presidential nomination of one of the two major > > > bourgeois parties. More fundamental was the historical transformation > > > of the Democratic Party over the past 40 years, the abandonment of > > > any, however modest, class-based political appeal, and the emergence > > > of identity politics as its central organizing principle. > > > > In the last great crisis of American capitalism, the Great Depression > > > of the 1930s, the Democratic Party under Roosevelt forged a coalition > > > embracing more far-sighted sections of the ruling class, the trade > > > unions, including the newly formed industrial unions, the professional > > > middle classes, small farmers and urban middle-class layers, from > > > shopkeepers to intellectuals. > > > > While American liberalism fervently supported the profit system, it > > > advanced in that period a reform agenda calling for a restructuring of > > > American capitalism in a way that would curtail the power of big > > > business, make a limited redistribution of wealth and achieve a > > > semblance of greater socio-economic equality. > > > > This program ended in shipwreck in the 1960s, when the Democratic > > > Party had to choose between social reform and the war in Vietnam, and > > > it chose, as it had to as a capitalist party, the defense of > > > imperialist interests abroad at the expense of the working class. > > > > More fundamentally, the protracted decline of American capitalism’s > > > world position, throughout the 1960s and 1970s undermined the core > > > Democratic promise of rising living standards and expanded social > > > services for all. The party sought to refashion itself instead as the > > > dispenser of privileges to elite layers among various racial and > > > ethnic constituencies and among women, while the living standards of > > > the broad mass of working people, African-American and Latino as well > > > as white, women and men, stagnated or declined. > > > > The embrace of identity politics was based on an evasion of the > > > fundamental class issues in American society. No Democrat politician > > > today could denounce the pernicious influence of the financial > > > oligarchs, as Roosevelt did, without suffering immediate political > > > oblivion. > > > > This obsessive focus on secondary issues of race, gender, sexual > > > orientation, etc., was on display throughout the Democratic > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
