Why Doesn't Obama Order the Military to Help New Jersey


Obama like George Bush gets all worked up when some goatherder stumps their toe in Afghanistan. So he rushes in with thousands of US Army troops to keep the government in business.

So now Mr. Obama has a huge crisis not 2 hundred miles from the White House. So just like Mr. Bush, he takes a tour in Air Force One. The people on the ground are getting more miserable by the hour. What does he do? Nothing basically except give them platitudes and a phone number to call. Horsefeathers!! these people need food, water, and electricty--some need a place to live. Why not open up Fort Dix, why not use a huge nuclear powered aircraft carrier to help with sick homeless people on its decks (does he need all those carriers in case of some attack?).

His bubble is just like Bush's. He really believes in my view that the local "first responders" can handle this --- HEY THIS ISN'T A BARN FIRE---MILLIONS OF PEOPLE ARE HURTING. Why don't you get the Army and Navy in there to help the local police and fire department. Our military has proved that it cannot beat a bunch of goatherders in Afghanistan so maybe they can help out here.


Will the New Jersey Hurricane Sandy be Obama's Katrina

Like many of you I was watching some great news reporting during storm Sandy hitting the East Coast and the storms aftermath. The damage is colossal--its scale is perhaps 10 times that of Katrina. Fortunately, the loss of life is just a fraction of that which killed and injured the thousands of souls in New Orleans. What struck me however, is the response to the suffering that is now coming to the fore by the Obama White House. Sure, we have the President and a team of top government and FEMA officials looking quite serious before the cameras. Obama is making all the PC statements about calling him if you get bound up by redtape.

Horsefeathers! The Obama White House response to this huge multistate crisis is almost just like that of the Bush White House. It took Bush's team almost 2 weeks to finally realize (DUH!) that there is only one group of people who have the power to get things in the disaster zones back in order. THE UNITED STATES ARMY. Just like Bush, Obama, continually wrings his hands over situations in Somalia, Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, Afghanistan, etc. while millions of Americans within 2 hundreds miles of him go without food, water, and electricity.

Just yesterday while he flew around in Air Force One (just like Bush) looking down from 10,000 feet, while people in the destroyed cities and towns were getting desperate without basic food. WHERE IS GENERAL HONOREE?  It  took that General directing the American Army to rescue New Orleans--this crisis might easily require every one in our Armed Forces with their big trucks, their heliocopters, and their amphib craft to get these people basic food and resources.  The US ARMY (I am a Army Vet) is the only group in the United States that is big enough and has the resources to handle this. I don't think that will get through the White House bubble though--so far it doesn't seem so.

I told my wife--just wait 3 more days. If Obama doesn't get General Honoree on the job with our military to help out these people, the roar will begin just like it did for Bush. Bush's popularity dropped 20 points for his handling of Katrina. Can you just image what will happen to Obama's popularity.  If Obama doesn't get going and soon, he might as well call a U-Haul because the Romney people will point to him and say--"Where was Obama when millions of people in New York and New Jersey needed his help" That will be legitimate critic too. THERE IS NO CIVILIAN BASED AGENCY i.e. FEMA that can get "local first responders" to do this work. They don't have the manpower, equipment, or funding to do it.



What Rambler Romney and the GOP don't say terror attacks


In the second debate Romney really stepped in dodo when he said that Obama didn't mention a terror attack on the Bengazi embassy which killed four of our State Department staff. True enough, it was established time that it was a terror attack and it killed four people.

How then didn't Romney (and Obama missed the opportunity to hit back) discuss the fact that on 9/11 we were attacked, over 3000 people were killed, the Bush White House didn't know it was a terrorist attack or a Russian attack or what.

So why then did everyone fall in and support President Bush but the traitors in the GOP chose to criticize Obama over four dead persons. Only one answer: The GOP is RACIST and find this another way to put down the black president.


What SCOTUS Justice Roberts Fears About an Obama Re-Election

When SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts voted that the Affordable Healthcare Law (Obamacare) was constitutional, I along with many liberal/progressives were shocked. Not so much that the vote carried 5 to 4 but the reason that Justice Roberts gave for his Yea vote on this landmark law. To this point in time and since his selection to the court Mr. Roberts could be counted on by the rightwing conservatives in America to vote as an "Right Wing Activist Juror". For years these same conservatives have shouted loudly that what America needs are "strict constructionist constitutional SCOTUS Justices". Then when it seemed as though they would get their wish, the SCOTUS got a 5 to 4 conservative majority and it went to work as a rightwing "Activist" court with Roberts leading the way taking America back to 1890. The Roberts Court has turned activist and has moved to strike down laws which were put in place for over one hundred years.

Then the rightwingers hit a bump in the road when Justice Roberts voted with the liberal Justices on the court and voted to  make Obamacare the law of the land. Why the dramatic turn to the left for the man who to this point was the point man on of the most conservative voting SCOTUS in United States history? Not since the most obnoxious court rulings of the period in the SCOTUS of 1870 to 1900 which fixed a second class citizenship status upon the negro race in the United States law for the next 80 years until the 1940s and 1950s when SCOTUS ended segregation once and for all under Chief Justice Earl Warren.

Chief Justice Roberts made liberals and progressives wonder why would he join the liberals on the court to establish a healthcare system available to all citizens of the United States and guaranteed by a mandantory membership system. Conservatives were outraged at Justice Roberts who they felt stabbed them in the back even though it was the GOP who first proposed a mandantory healthcare system back in the early 1990's. It was used as the model for Obamacare when enacted into law in 2010.

The Chief Justice offered his opinion of support for Obamacare squarely on the Constitution's explicit support of the right of the Federal government to enact taxation to pay for its programs and operations. Good enough. Even though that is taking a strict construction of the Constitution as basis to accent to this hugely important law.

Questions were raised by Mr. Roberts Yea vote on the law. Some wanted to know if Roberts was in fact turning to the left on social legislation. That idea is fairly weak. As a dogmatic Catholic follower of the darkly sinister Opus Dei cult, it is highly doubtful that Roberts could ever be viewed even as a left leaner. One can only guess as to why Bush 41 and Bush 43 (who are desended New England protestant stock ) would pack the SCOTUS with hardcore Catholic Justices.

I would like to submit another option as to Chief Justice Roberts sudden turn about to his lifelong rightwing conservative training, teaching, and personal outlook. Perhaps the Chief Justice is hedging his bet on the re-election of Barack Obama. What does this mean. Consider your political science courses in college. The professors stressed that over the years with a few exceptions, Chief Justices like to leave a legal / landmark legal legacy. Our very first Chief Justice John Marshall is still studied by high school civics classes and college government students two-hundred and fifty years after the "Marshall Supreme Court" literally invented judicial review of the laws of Congress and the operations of the Executive Branch. All of us remember the decisions of "Warren Court" within most of our lifetimes. President Eisenhower appointed Gov. Earl Warren as a conservative mind to the SCOTUS to enhance its conservative strength. Then boom, Warren turned straight away to going forward with the most liberal activist SCOTUS of the 20th century.

Now we have a "Roberts Court". I would submit that Chief Justice Roberts does not want the court which has is name to be known for no landmark decisions. He probably noted the outrage when the 5 to 4 ruling in Citizens United struck down a 100 year old law. Way too many decisions are 5 to 4 in the Roberts Court. This is not only bad in the present but when law students 50 years in the future study the SCOTUS will they repeatedly say that Chief Justice Roberts was a terrible Chief Justice who could not marshall his team and get more unified decisions. In 1954 when Chief Justice Earl Warren decided to once and for all rebuke the 1890 Supreme Court decision of Plessey vs. USA which allowed Southern states to segregate their schools using the most jaded of legal reasoning --"Separate But Equal". Earl Warren by 1950 knew that there were NO  school systems which were "separate but equal". It was a sham that had existed since the Supreme Court decision of 1890 and in 1954 everyone knew it but the Southern states dug in and refused to end its segregation. Chief Justice Earl Warren decided to end it and he went to every one of the other Justices and begged, bargained and cajoled them to vote to end segregation. The decision in 1954 of "Brown vs. Kansas City Board of Education" was the case that Warren wanted. HIS court voted 9 to 0 to end segregation no matter where it existed in the United States.

Chief Justice Roberts in my view still looks like a spineless wimp. He should have taken the 4 Justices who voted to end Obamacare to the proverbial "woodshed" and gotten a 9 to 0 decision. He may now realize that he will never be a highly regarded. I would hope that he fears becoming like Chief Justice Rehnquist who was loved by Conservatives but to my view will never be a highly regarded Chief Justice because he never brought forward legal problems and then established new ground with innovative legal principles, he only obstructed access to the Supreme Court by those who needed it most--i.e. people due to circumstances are locked out of the courthouses and forbidden justice--the perfect example of which are millions of black people in America--Earl Warren is considered the greatest Chief Justice because he saw injustice and set about to destroy it.  Chief Justice Roberts up to the Obamacare ruling had made a  Supreme Court with his name on it into a puppet for corporations and those who want to deny rights to people who need the court's help.

We shall see if Mr. Roberts wants his namesake SCOTUS to be studied by history and government classes for the future. His court has be activist when asked to make corporations into people (a ridiculous idea which almost guarantees that the Roberts Court will be a laughingstock in 50 years or so) and other commercial cases with little or no impact on history. The Obamacare case is different. Chief Justice may feel that if Obama is re-elected and gets a chance to pick at least one  more Justice then the Roberts Court will be in a real mess. Should he continue to vote with the conservative ilk such as Scalia then that would put the Chief Justice Roberts on the losing side of every 5 to 4 decision. Can you image the humiliation of that event to anyone with a smattering of self pride and ESPECIALLY THE SUPREME COURT'S OWN CHIEF JUSTICE.

Future history students would marvel that this intelligent and persuasive man could not gather together a cohesive team and win within its own group of just 9 people. Congress has 535 members and they can occasionally pass a law--then how come Chief Justice Robert is such a BAD MANAGER HE CANNOT GET A WIN ON THE SCOREBOARD--THAT IS A REAL LAUGHER!!!


How Bad Will an Obama Loss Be To the Dems

Please put down the shoe and let me explain why an Obama loss might not be the end of the world for Democrats.

After the first debate with Rambler Romney, Obama was criticized mightily for his detachment and for his world inside the White House bubble. I submit that Obama's detached persona goes all the way back to the months immediately following his win in November. He came away from his winning campaign somehow convinced that he would go to the Republicans in the Democratic controlled Congress (which was in place since 2006 before his election) and make the GOP members "his friends" and colloborators. Never mind that everyone outside his bubble knew the GOP hated him for many reasons -- mainly he had deposed them from the White House and perhaps because he was a black man.  Obama never realized he was attempting to make friends with a pack of rattlesnakes. That is inexcusible since he had served for several years in Congress upon his assention to the White House. Obama taking his cue from something in his inner self was convinced not to be mean to the GOP. First off, he deserted the Democratic candidates who were in hard runoff campaigns. Martin in Georgia and Al Franken in Minnesota. Obama had a huge campaign organization and money but he not once even tried to get these two men elected. It would have been decisive. Here in Texas we were moving in the Progressive direction. In 2006 and then in 2008, the former Republican stongholds in Dallas and Houston threw out a slew of longtime GOP judges and other officeholders including District Attorneys who vowed to stop the wholesale practice of their Republican predessors which sent first time and minor offenders to long jail terms in "Prison Industrial" confinements for such offenses as a single marijuana cigarette or disorderly conduct at a football game. All that came to an end even before Obama.

Upon his election Mr. Obama decided the best things were to make nice to the Republicans and stop campaigning against them and to CLIMB INTO THE WHITE HOUSE BUBBLE. For a Harvard professor this is an amazing development. When I was in college political science classes the professors time and again would discuss how presidents get cut off from dissention by the "bubble". Even more amazing for Obama, he had just gotten elected by hammering George Bush for being in an iron clad bubble (GWBush believed any story from his neocon advisors that had Saddam owning WMD's or nukes).  Obama often used that as his rationale for election.

As a Democrat officer in Texas I watched in horror as Obama went further and further into the "bubble".  No single payer healthcare because the GOP would block that, no big stimulus because the GOP would not go along, etc. And as to the Democrats out here in the states he told us to "go to hell" and made a point of cutting us off from any help. The first elections Franken won with no help from the Obama team, MARTIN LOST because Obama refused to go to Georgia and turn out the black voters who could have made the decision in a tight race.

Then Ted Kennedy died. His seat went open. Did Obama run his team in to help out the Democrats in Massachuetts to keep the seat that had been Democratic since the Stone Age--NOPE--Obama made one campaign trip there in the entire election period and the GOP seized the seat. I WAS SHOCKED.

Oh well, 2010 is coming and surely Obama will launch his team to help out the Democrats WHO HAD HELP HIM PASS OBAMACARE....NOPE AGAIN, he was nowhere to found on the campaign trail. We got slaughtered. In Texas we lost over 100 seats to the GOP in 2010. Nationwide the same problem---Obama was missing and we got hammered.

Now, its his turn. Well, maybe he wins or maybe not. Either way I'm thinking that since he never shows up for local Democrats, they will not show up for him. I don't worry about it. If Rambler Romney wins then the GOP has a good chance to get two more conservatives on the SCOTUS so that is bad otherwise I cannot see much difference between Obama and Rambler anyway.

A good example of the distrust that even blacks have for Obama is in the 2011 election for local officials in Texas. Time was before Obama that the Dems could look for over 2 million voters. In 2011, we barely had 900,000 vote. What a shame.

So in conclusion I must say that if Obama wins narrowly, then he must live in the house THAT HE BUILT. My prediction is that since he like Bill Clinton did not attend to local party building at the local level, Mr. Obama will have to face a GOP Controlled House and its Tea Party members will seek to impeach him. The legacy of Barack Obama's second term is that he will be hounded by the GOP and Tea Party as was Bill Clinton that he will have NO TIME TO BUILD A LEGACY!  His "bubble" will burst in January of 2013 when Ken Starr's team show up at the White House with subpeonas to review all of the records of the Obama team for the last four years.

As for me. I'm going to start fresh in 2013 with energy devoted to undoing the damage that was done to local Democrats over the last four years.


If he wins will Obama will he turn back to the right again

One concern many of progressives like myself see in President Obama is the nagging fear that if re-elected he will immediately cave in to the vocal ultraright wing of the GOP and renege on his campaign promises.  I am not saying we should not vote for him -- we should because compared to Romney he is worth the gamble that he won't do to the Progressive movement what he did over the first four years when he pulled out of his promises to give us a single payer healthcare system and closing of GITMO. We kind of thought that he would pull the troops out of Afghanistan but foreign policy events are beyond of control of any President.  However, much of the good he has done has been undermined by his support for banking executives (he never disallowed their huge bonus plans), the damage he did in 2010 by standing by while the Rightwing Tea Party eviserated our Democratic Congress House and Senate Majorities. He could have gotten out on the stump and energized the base especially the black voters who vote in blocs.  Obama bowled over many Progressives when he virtually disappeared from sight when the Union movement ran into trouble with the rightwing Governor of Wisconsin. Mr. Obama continues to damage the Democratic party and in effect he hurts the Progressives when the White House cabinet level secretaries continue to spend huge amounts of Federal contracts in RED states such as Texas where profits from those contracts go to the business cabal headed by Gov. Rick Perry and the Bush Family. That money ultimately will go to defeat Democrats and subvert efforts of the Progressive movement. I do not think Mr. Obama means to do this but he often fails to drive nails into the Rightwing and he comes off as being rightwing friendly. Recently for example, the White House awarded a $1 Billion defense appropriation to a rightwing cabal based in a backwater farm college based Central Texas. This money could have gone to a premier research university such as Univ. of Californian, MIT, Harvard, Cal-Tech University which are located in the BLUEST of states with long experience in cutting edge science and defense systems unlike Perry's Texas A-M which only does research on farm animals and has no know award winning science programs going back over 150 years as do the ones I mentioned in California and Massachusetts.

I would hope that Obama stands up to the rightwing philosophy that the age for Social Security and Medicare must be raised or benefits should be limited in some arbitrary way.  To this point I have not seen Obama stand up to the rightwing forces inside the Beltway.



How White House Helps Out Rick Perry and Texas Rightwing Business

As a Texan, maybe I should be grateful Mr. Obama and his White House team for continuing to support the economy in Texas. As a Democrat who lives in Texas I can tell you that if Mr. Obama thinks he is securing friends in the Lone Star State he is greatly mistaken. The Federal money that the Obama administration continues to pour into the Texas economy usually finds its way into the hands of Republicans who own businesses here. The money then finds its way into the coffers of Texas Republicans such as Mr. Perry and other Texas politicians. These people don't share any of the vision of a peaceful co-existence and cumbayah that President Obama likes to bandy around. Its like the famous back to the future character George McFly who is in love with the homecoming queen but she has no interest in ANY relationship. As one who mixes into Republican circles, I will tell you they have no interest in anything remotely related to President Obama. In fact most of them HATE him.

So how then is the President's team handing over billions of tax dollars to people who will use it to defeat him and any Democrat in sight.

1. NASA-Houston:  This operation is a hot bed of Tea Party activity. I work there and almost daily I hear racist jokes directed at Obama. Ironically I hear a continual rant about the Federal government intrusion into states business affairs, the growth and size of the Federal government, deficits, etc. All this from Federal employees or Federal aerospace contractors. When I point out the contradiction of government employees complaining about the role of government these people do not see the irony of it all. Most shrug and tell me: "The government will not shut down NASA--what we do here is TOO important."  I usually don't press the argument that many people outside of Texas getting somewhat steamed up to find themselves on antiquated highways and transit systems while NASA spends $3.5 billion on YET ANOTHER MARS LANDER which takes cool pictures of Mars rocks....WOW!!

If Obama is so interested in winning in Florida, one would think that he would ship all the Red State Ultra-conservative Texas NASA jobs to Florida and then go around that swing state bragging about how he brought in 3,000 NASA jobs to the Cape Canaveral area.

2. The recent decision by President Obama to locate a $1 Billion defense laboratory at Texas A and M University. Talk about irony. This is the home school of Governor Rick Perry and his business cabal. The Democrats in Blue states like California and New York should be livid that this has happened on their watch. Why should great educational facilities in those states see research money going to a small farm based hick school in central Texas. Why not Harvard or Cal-Tech who have long histories of ground breaking research. Texas A-M teaches veteranarian science to farm boys.




Why does Romney hide his 10 year tax return: Is it because he actually is an equity partner and getting $50 million per year from Bain Capital since he left in 1999. Why is this important. Romney is on record as a Globalist Neo-Con cut from the same cloth as the G.W. Bush national security team. Romney has stated repeatedly that he wants to expand more the USA's military's "nation building" wars in backwater / third World countries such as Afghanistan, Angola, Nigeria, Somalia, the Sudan,etc. If elected he will take us back to the era of fighting wars on virtually ever continent and backwater nation where tribal disputes have be rife for centuries. Romney's foreign policy views have gotten endosements from the Bush Family and Karl Rove. The exception to Romney's saber-rattling has come from the key military figure from the Bush era--Colin Powell. Recently Powell told a TV audience that Romney's view on Russia and China were wrong and they were extreme. Romney was quoted as saying both countries were enemies of the United States. Mr. Powell disagreed and pointed out that since the end of the Cold War, we have had normal relationships with both Russia and China. He said the Romney's views toward these countries was a step backward and it was Romney who was out of touch with current US foreign policies in many areas. It is clear why Romney will ramp up budget expenditures for defense contracts and for military expenses. The reason: one can assume that Bain Capital has huge investments in not only oil / mineral extraction companies operating in these resourses rich but backwater-corrupt countries. By taking over these countries, Bain clients such as happened after Iraq would stand to get control of huge reserviors of oil, gas, coal, etc. One can also assume that Bain Capital most likely has very large investments in companies which are in the Military-Industrial Complex. Its not much of a stretch to see us bogged down chasing "evil doers" for years to come in far off oil and resource rich but poor countries. The irony is that Romney nor any one in his family ever has served in the US military (he has 5 sons who do would never volunteer for service unlike the Queen Elizabeths 2 grandsons Prince William and Harry who serve bravely in combat and air-resue operations). Unlike Colin Powell who was wounded in combat in Vietnam, none of the Romney clan has to my knowledge experienced the terror of being shot at by enemy troops. Romney admitted that during Vietnam he didn't serve in the military but instead went to Paris on a sabbatical. The general public and the majority of the US voting public is tired of these brushfire wars and has become hugely opposed to more of this backwater wars. In the media the neo-con driven Fox network cheers on anyone who wants to send thousands of US troops to every dustup firefight anywhere on earth. Consider that in Afghanistan there are only 20,000 Taliban but we have over 100,000 troops fighting there and NATO supplies another 40,000 troops plus 300,000 Afghan security forces. Do you wonder why it takes so many of our troops to fight such a small number of bad-guys? It might have to do with the fact that the Afghan government is so corrupt and they need our support and our dollars to stay in business. Most of us get concerned when we remember back during the war in Iraq and the discovery of the huge no-bid contracts that the Pentagon had with Bush and GOP supporters i.e. KBR, Crane Trucking. I think that we will find that soon after Romney gets elected and he finds the next target of his neo-cons (probably Venezuela but OH WAIT Chavez was democratly elected - however that is NO MATTER to the neo-cons) that Bain Capital military supplier clients would be in line to get BILLIONS of dollars in "no-bid" and sweetheart deals from the Defense Department via the White House i.e. as was the case when VP Dick Cheney the former CEO to the biggest no-bid contractor KBR Corporation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus, we can theorize as to why Romney does not want his tax returns over the last ten years to become public. If as suspected he has not given up his equity in Bain, then as President of the United States it would be illegal for him to pass huge no-bid contracts over to Bain and its clients. No matter that while Vice-President, Mr. Cheney's former employer KBR got billions of contracts for all kinds of operations in Iraq. These contracts were supposed to save taxpayers money but in the end they proved inefficient (regular military operations could do them faster and cheaper than private companies) and of limited benefit to national security. Like ·



Isn't Obama being a Hypocrite on Job Outsourcing?

If Romney's team were to do their homework there are plenty of reasons to fire back at Obama's record on sending jobs overseas. The list is long on Obama either failing to insure jobs stay here or actually authorizing the export of jobs to other countries:

1. Obama's record on trade and trade agreements is terrible: First off take his much touted trade deal with Korea last fall. This thing is pathetic--it ensures that jobs will be exported to Asia. Liberal Democrat Dennis Kucinich noted recently that this agreement was written by the business interests in Korean and will cost over 200,000 jobs. What kind of agreement has no benchmarks for enforcement. The agreement evidently is so one-sided that it allowed Korea recently to stop importing US beef and beef products. The reason was silly--one alleged case of cow disease out of our 100 million sized herds of beef cattle. Obama or his agents allowed language in the agreement which specifies that Korea can increase shipments to the USA but no such wording improves our exports.

Don't even think about China. Under Obama's reign, China's trade deficit with the USA has grown by 20% in just 4 years.

2. Obama's labor record is awful. Right after he took office the White House opened up the US highway system with Mexican truckers. Even George Bush had held up that part of the NAFTA agreement which allows Mexican drivers to freely operate in the USA. This came on the heals of the Teamster Union working to get Obama elected. He really knows how to thank people who have helped him.

3. Democrats in The House of Representatives in 2010 went into the November election with a big Democrat majority. So many Democrats lost their seats that come 2013 if the GOP gets in control of both House and Senate we may see a reprise of the Clinton years from 1996 to 2000 where the GOP was hell bent to impeach him. Boehner has stated that he has no interest in impeachment. So, what then if the TEA PARTY partisans get control of things and toss out Boehner then send in their own Speaker with the assigned task to bring back Ken Starr and the Impeachment hearings. These people are ruthless and they hate Obama with a fury. If I were a Democrat in Congress would I care if the GOP goes after Obama. Think about this. Many of the Democratic guy / lady who came into the House in the sweep of 2006 (before Obama got his hands on things) are now gone. Obama didn't lift a finger to help them out in 2010--no money, no party building, etc. just oh well thats life.  Now he's telling all those Democrats "Hey, I'm not spending as much money in 2012 on my campaign as the GOP is against me so I guess you are again on your own like in 2010".  If I were a Democrat in Congress I would not give him the time of day. The gridlock isn't all about the GOP. Obama doesn't do much either except make platitudes and fly about in AF One.

4. The announcement that the Afghan army will be outfitted by a Russian arms dealer--ARE YOU FRICKING KIDDING ME?  What manner of logic has a US President conceding to buy arms from a foreign government and giving them to another foreign government. Next time we have to go into Afghanistan our guys will be killed with even better Russian ammo.  This is just nuts. We have been told for 50 years that the M-16 is the best infantry weapon. Its made here.

So in summary let me say this: Obama loves workers he just loves foreign workers best. The only reason that I can see that Romney hasn't blasted him for some of this is that a. Bain Capital is behind the Afghan / Russian arms deal b. He is too busy getting the drapes ordered for the White House in 2013.....



Is Obama like Jerry Ford, Jimmie Carter, and George HW Bush--OUT OF TOUCH AND HEADED OUT THE DOOR

Here is the story on Obama getting defeated in 2012. It sounds bad to us Progressives but then maybe him getting hammered in the election has a silver lining. My view is that we will start by knowing that the GOP is trying to push us all into poverty and stop thinking Obama is ever going to help us. His record so far is pretty dismal as to providing any assistance to the Democrats in Congress districts, local judgeships, State Governorships, etc.
1. He totally squandered the Congress majority that we Democrats had in 2008 when he was elected.
As I said many times he does little or no Dem Party building for locals or Congress. For example in 2008 he had a huge organization in place which it was hoped he would put into action in thousands of precinct level elections. It didn't happen and  by 2010 in just 2 years HIS VAULTED ORGANIZATION OF 2008 COULDN'T ELECT A LOCAL DOGCATCHER. Obama's neglect of local politics lost the Kennedy senate seat in Massachuetts, then in 2010 lost the big majority in Senate and he lost control of the House, and finally (and worst of all) he lost large numbers of governorships. Does anyone ever remember him leaving the White House to help out a local Democrat in a tough election--I cannot. The governorship losses are particularly galling to me. It WAS/IS most important that Democrats and Progressives control the governor jobs in the states especially during elections. One only has to go back to 2000 to see why. Governors (Democratic) insure that elections are open, prevent voter intimidation, etc. When the GOP controls the Governorships it seems that we have a whole bunch of tainted elections, and voter registration irregularities because the governors in each state control the essential fairness of the elections. Its not in the interest of the GOP for large numbers of poor and minority (and Seniors too) to come to vote. You can bet that what Obama did in 2010 was to insure that we now have many more GOP governors who don't give a snit for voter fairness nor large turnouts as we did when the Dems ruled the statehouses in 2008. What an irony. Obama got the benefit of big turnout, fair election processes in the state and yet he turned around and now his own ineptitude will insure his own defeat in many swing states.
MY VIEW IS THAT WHEN HE AND THE GOP ARE DONE WITH THE COUNTRY JUST AS THEY DID UNDER BUSH, THEN THE DEMOCRATS WILL REORGANIZE AND WILL BE MUCH STRONGER. So we might as well go back to work and stop hoping that Obama will give us any grassroots help. He will be out of our way and we can push to take back America at the local, state and Congress level like we did in 2006.
2. He continually as I have often pointed out acts like a closet Republican.  Just yesterday, he gave a $1 Billion dollar research grant to a Texas A & M business cabal connected to Tea Party darling Governor Rick Perry. All the profits from this will definitely go to rich Texas business interests who HATE DEMOCRATS AND ARE REPUBLICAN TO THE CORE. You can bet that huge amounts of this money will find its way over the next serveral years into SUPER PACS set up to beat Democrats in Congress and in state races.
3. He rarely gets any traction at the local level. I work in the voting polling precincts and I can tell you, the Democrats are not going to turn out for him. And I am not sure that he has any idea that he is toast with local black and Democrat voters. They don't dislike him, they just don't see that he cares anything about them. Just listen to him. He rarely talks of anything other than European Banking issues, Korean Trade Deals, China, etc. He's always focused on the problems of a. Europe b. large banks c. esoteric Non-voting people i.e. hispanic immigrants (they can't vote for him because they aren't citizens so why should he waste his fu*king time on them).
4. What has he done for Organized Labor Unions? NOTHING---he signed the Korean deal which will put 200,000 US workers out of a job. He opened up the US Highway system to thousands of Mexican truckers at the expense of the Teamsters. AND WORST OF ALL HE HAS IGNORED THEIR NEED FOR WHITE HOUSE SUPPORT as in the situation in Wisconsin. HE NEVER once even brought it up. You would have thought that he would have gone to Wisconsin many times to support Labors Issues there. But no, he was staging summits in Cabo or Europe or winging over for photo ops with Putin and others bigwig international A-Listers.

Now we hear that Obama's campaigners plan to spend LESS than Romney over the next six months of the election.  He has neglected those hopeful people who sent him millions of small contributions in 2007 & 2008 so now they seem to be closing their checkbooks and moving on to find a real General who will lead us in the next few years as we battle the forces of the 1%, the Super PAC's, and corporate global enterprises.


It's almost like he is having some kind of meltdown over the situation of our economy so he takes on the role of sympathizer for Europe and Asian economies. Over the last six months Obama has made dozens of speeches whose central theme is the European problems and then suddenly he makes the biggest blunder of his career when Obama pulled the Gerald Ford Polish mistake (Ford famously uttered: "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.")

and told the reporters that "the private sector is FINE". Are you sh*tting me. Twenty million people out of work and "its fine". The only thing doing fine are Wall Street Banks and CEO's but then maybe he is so far out of touch that he is beginning to believe his own fantacies.  My view is that Obama is now out of touch and headed down the same pathway to one term as Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George HW Bush.




Advertise Blogads