I have to say that I'm more than a little intrigued by the prospective candidacy of Mayor Michael Bloomberg in the 2008 race for the presidency. Don't get me wrong---I'm still rockin' for Barack all day long, but Obama has a 1 in 3 chance to be the Democratic nominee at this point, if you believe in the current tiers of the race.
Here's what we as Democrats might be faced with next year:
Hillary Clinton vs Mike Bloomberg vs Any of the JackAss Repugs running. Obviously, none of us are going to run to the Dixipublicans, but we'll have a real dilemma in left vs center battle. And, in my view, our Democratic nominee would represent the center.
Bloomberg is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, very green, anti-unilateralist, and sees politicians like himself as elected to solve problems---kinda like post-election Schwarzeneggar. And when we have people who run government believe in using the government to solve the nation's biggest problems---well, isn't that what progressives are all about?
Another thing to ponder---is it treasonous of me as not only a Dem voter but a local Dem officer to be having such blasphemous thoughts? I've been straight blue for as long as I can remember, but there's no doubt in my mind that I would cast a vote for Bloomberg over Clinton and others should they get the nomination, maybe even others considered more liberal than Bloomberg. I'm tired of the polarizing, and things need to get done. The planet is in crisis, and so is the nation's health. We need solutions. So, while I think Obama has the chance to be a generational leader, in the FDR/Kennedy tradition, I don't have that same belief about others.
Should I resign my position in the party now, or wait to see if BHO wins or not? In my heart, I'd like to think I know I'm progressive first, Dem second.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Stay with the Democrats for now. Bloomberg says he's not running. Yes, I know, but he is waiting to see how strong the others are nearer to the election. There is always the chance that if Obama gets the nomination he will be just as progressive - "hope springs eternal"!
Why I will not vote for Obama:
1. Are we likely to get GOOD CHANGES in Energy policy from an Obama administration?
Answer: NO. Why Not?
Because: Obama voted FOR the Cheney Energy Bill (H.R. 6) in 2005.
(which enabled the nuke industry to begin planning to build 29 new nukes (one of them in Pennsylvania)
- after 30 years of no new nukes being built because the banks wouldn't loan the money - too risky.
The Cheney Energy Bill solved that problem for the nuke industry by guaranteeing taxpayer payback of any of the nuke loans that default ... (with the risk of default rated by the Congressional Budget Office at 50% or greater).
Because: Obama has been IN with the nuke industry for decades. Excelon Corp. of Illinois is the largest nuke operator on earth - ( they own the nuclear power plants in Illinois and they own Con-Ed in NY state). Excelon has been one of Obama's largest contributors since his earliest days in politics.
Because: Obama would not even be IN the race for president IF he was not HEAVILY SUPPORTED by the nuke industry. GE (2nd largest corporation on the planet) & Westinghouse are planning to build many of those nukes.
GE owns NBC & MSNBC. Westinghouse owns CBS. That's the reason "the Mainstreams Media" are PUSHING Obama for President/ slamming & smearing the Clintons. ABSENT BILLIONS of dollars worth of FREE Pro-Obama Advertising/Propaganda provided by NBC/MSNBC/and CBS Obama would not have gotten past the New Hampshire primary.
2. Are we likely to get GOOD CHANGES in the ECONOMY?
Answer: It doesn't look good. Obama's financial advisors include the followng people:
JEFFREY LIEBMAN: SOCIAL SECURITY: In a 2005 policy paper Liebman advocated a mix of benefit cuts, tax increases and mandatory personal accounts.
DAVID CUTLER: HEALTHCARE: He Says High Health Care Costs are Good.
AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: RICH GETTING RICHER, EVERYBODY ELSE GETTING POORER:
The stagnation of middle- and working-class incomes, and the anxiety this has generated, is, he says, a most pressing problem, but policymakers must be mindful about trying to address its root cause, which Goolsbee says is "radically increased returns to skill." ( i.e. College degrees are paying off more & more --- which is true, BUT Certainly DOES NOT account for the rise of the super rich, nor the increasing poverty of everyone else.)
(Evidently, Goolsbee's not old enough to remember the beginning of that Income Inequality, or to recognize THE CAUSE. It began in 1981. THE CAUSE of it was and is that Reagan cut the top tax rate DOWN from 70% to the low 30% s, AND Corporations all over America BEGAN instituting "THE TWO-TIER WAGE STRUCTURE'. i.e. Pay the people at the top a LOT MORE, Pay Everybody Else a LOT LESS. (If you searched old newspaper archives from the early 1980s you would find newspaper articles about the sudden appearance of the Two-Tier Wage Structure.)
3. Are we likely to get GOOD CHANGES in Foreign Policy?
Answer: Not Likely.
Among a dozen or so Foreign Policy Advisors the most "senior" advisor is:
Zbigniew Brzezinski. Former National Security Advisor to President Carter. Using the CIA & Billions of dollars, he ginned up a War in Afghanistan .... seeking as he said to "give the Soviet Union its own Vietnam.".
He Created the Taliban and Al Queda/ JIHAD/madrassa brainwashing schools for that purpose. Supported the dictator Pol Pol who massacred millions of Cambodian villagers. When asked, if in hindsight, considering that Al Queda eventually attacked America, and Pol Pot slaughtered millions - IF he would change anything he had done .... Zbig answered NO, he was satisfied with the results.
Electing Obama President is not likely to reassure the rest of the world that the U.S. is going to cease having an insane foreign policy; is likely to put Russia on an even more nervous hair trigger than they are now.
The major problem with Obama and his advisiors is they are ACADEMICS who have lived the life of privilege out of touch with the real world --- Better educated and smarter than Bush's gang --- they are still likely to do just as badly at running the government --- for the same reason: OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY ... i.e. insane....people doing insane things.
4. Are we likely to get GOOD CHANGES in: appointing competent qualified people to run the government; instead of cronyism, or good changes that get rid of fraud, payoffs, and corruption in government?
Answer: No.
Because: Obama's friend Rezko was part and parcel of the mafia connected, corrupt, Daley Chicago political machine. Rezko was Obama's chief fundraiser from the beginning of his career in Illinois politics to his election to the U.S. Senate. There is very little coverage of the Obama Rezko/Daley corruption connections on National TV, but the local Chicago papers have a lot of info going back several years ... & it don't look good for Obama. He got IN with the Daley machine when his wife worked as an assistant to one of Daley's higher ups; Obama looks to be part and parcel of the same corrupt Daley political machine as his friend Rezko.
Some of the above is speculation based on facts.. What I KNOW Obama HAS ALREADY DONE makes all the above doubts and questions irrelevant in answering the question:
Is Obama qualified to be, or likely to be, a GOOD President?
Answer: NO. He has already done something so unconscionable, so dirty, so dangerous that no sane American would even consider voting for him. HE played the race card.
Those accusations of racism against the Clintons did not come from any public "Outcry" on the part of black people all over the country - those accusations of racism came solely and directly from the Obama Campaign. Obama was caught red-handed pushing those accusations to the press - in a 4-page Internal Campaign Memo - Listing those accusations & directing them to the press. The Huffington Post obtained a copy & published it on the web.
Shortly thereafter, during one of the debates, Tim Russert (MSNBC) ..... while rustling a copy of the 4-page Memo in his hand .... asked Obama .... your campaign has been pushing accusations of racism to the press (rustles pages) .... in a 4-page campaign memo .... what do you have to say about that?
Obama mumbled a few sentences ....( people in both campaigns get carried away and say things they shouldn't have said ... blah..blah) .... and .... then MSNBC/ the mainstream media .... NEVER MENTIONED IT AGAIN!.
Instead, MSNBC/NBC/CBS and all the rest of the mainstream CORPORATE-CONTROLLED media just went right on endlessly PUSHING the SAME totally ridiculous false accusations of "racism".
Obama made those accusations of racism .... in order to win the South Carolina primary. Obama has continued to make accusations of racism ... every time .... he falls behind in the polls. The question is: What USE of RACISM / inter-racial strife would he NOT stoop to IF elected President.
Which brings us to the Question: Is it likely Obama will TRANSCEND race... .Get Past the Politics of DIVISION;.. .....Unite this Country?
Given the DIVISION he has already created by making false accusations of racism - the answer is a resounding:
HELL NO!
Obama is the CORPORATE-CONTROLLED candidate being PUSHED by the CORPORATE-CONTROLLED Media.
Same Media that sold TOO MANY AMERICANS on Bush/Cheney. Same Media that SOLD U.S. a War.
Post a Comment