if anyone cares to, i'd like to read people's thoughts on this rather blunt editorial.
obviously, the editorial is written from a lefty p.o.v., so "worse" and "better" have subjectivity, as in all political commentary. as for me, i see myself more toward the "center" (whatever that means anymore), though leaning (slightly?) left, more often than not.
as people here already know, i've maintained for awhile that the g.o.p. had long ago gone around the bend ... escalated their massive sellout to incredible heights, surreal at times, and thus obama was a no-brainer in 2012. i basically "have no choice."
no choice? well ... exactly, according to this editorial. it even goes so far as to suggest mccain would have had a similar presidency (without such things as pretending to pass "health care reform"), and possibly wouldn't have gotten away with the level of war escalation in afghanistan and libya that obama did (with almost nil protest). i find it a pretty depressing editorial . . . but is this guy telling it like it is?
i think this guy's take is a bit extreme. libya was a NATO mission, not strictly a u.s. one. (or so we've been told). and the disturbing "automatic cuts" to gov't. programs apply to military spending too. (so they say).The president has failed his liberal Democratic supporters and capitulated to the Republicans. Here’s their charge sheet:
Obama failed to end the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy, failed to create a government-run health insurance system, and failed in his negotiations with Congress on raising the debt-ceiling to shelter Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. And in a yet-to-be approved deal to avoid default of the US government’s debt, Obama agreed to automatic cuts in social programs and defense spending if a bipartisan panel fails to agree on a deficit-reduction package, or its recommendations are rejected by Congress. Conspicuously missing are tax increases on the wealthy as one of the automatic triggers. The ultra-wealthy will continue to avoid paying their share of taxes, loaning their spare cash, instead, to Washington, to be repaid in full with interest — an attractive deal for the rich, a swindle for everyone else. The upward redistribution of wealth continues as strongly as it ever did under Bush, the only difference being that Bush admitted the ultra-wealthy were his “base,” while Obama doesn’t.
On foreign policy, Obama’s record is no better. He has failed to close Guantanamo Bay, stepped up the war in Afghanistan, extended the war to Yemen, and wages war in Libya without Congressional authorization — which is only slightly worse than the fact that he’s waging war on Libya. All this means that for liberal Democrats, Obama is a clear disappointment. But that sure doesn’t mean they won’t vote for him. And Obama knows it. Liberal Democrats, progressives and even Communists are so terrified of the Republican Party right-wing, that they’ll vote for anyone to the left of it, even if “to the left”, means a long way toward right.
but it does seem as if the 2-party system is increasingly meaningless, under the domination of large corporate money and influence ... (or was i just not paying attention for years?)
)
