In January, 2013, one of two people will be President of the United States: Barack Obama or the Republican nominee. Whether you want to vote for one of them or against one of then, those are the only two choices you have. By voting for a third party candidate or staying home, you may get to enjoy the smug satisfaction of disapproval, but the only real effect you will have is to help the candidate furthest from your own views. Millions did so in 2010, and they need look no further than Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Florida or the US House of Representatives to see what havoc they have unleashed on this nation. In an interesting article, E.J. Dionne, Jr. postulates that Obama must win in 2012, because, in a very strange way, Obama is the only conservative in the race.
…Obama is defending a tradition that sees government as an essential actor in the nation’s economy, a guarantor of fair rules of competition, a countervailing force against excessive private power, a check on the inequalities that capitalism can produce, and an instrument that can open opportunity for those born without great advantages.
Today’s Republicans cast the federal government as an oppressive force, a drag on the economy and an enemy of private initiative. Texas Gov. Rick Perry continues to promise, as he did last week during a campaign stop in Davenport, Iowa, to be a president who would make “Washington, D.C., as inconsequential in your life as he can make it.” That far-reaching word “inconsequential” implies a lot more than trims in budgets or taxes.
The GOP is engaged in a wholesale effort to redefine the government help that Americans take for granted as an effort to create a radically new, statist society. Consider Romney’s claim in his Bedford speech: “President Obama believes that government should create equal outcomes. In an entitlement society, everyone receives the same or similar rewards, regardless of education, effort and willingness to take risk. That which is earned by some is redistributed to the others. And the only people who truly enjoy any real rewards are those who do the redistributing — the government.”
Obama believes no such thing. If he did, why are so many continuing to make bundles on Wall Street? As my colleagues Greg Sargent and Paul Krugman have been insisting, Romney is saying things about the president that are flatly, grossly and shamefully untrue. But Romney’s sleight of hand is revealing: Republicans are increasingly inclined to argue that any redistribution (and Social Security, Medicare, student loans, veterans benefits and food stamps are all redistributive) is but a step down the road to some radically egalitarian dystopia.
Obama will thus be the conservative in 2012, in the truest sense of that word. He is the candidate defending the modestly redistributive and regulatory government the country has relied on since the New Deal, and that neither Ronald Reagan nor George W. Bush dismantled. The rhetoric of the 2012 Republicans suggests they want to go far beyond where Reagan or Bush ever went. And here’s the irony: By raising the stakes of 2012 so high, Republicans will be playing into Obama’s hands. The GOP might well win a referendum on the state of the economy. But if this is instead a larger-scale referendum on whether government should be “inconsequential,” Republicans will find the consequences to be very disappointing. [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Washington Post>
Now many of you may think that defending the status-quo is not good enough, and I agree. I would like to see dramatic change now, just like most of you, but that choice is not on the table. The way to make that kind of change happen is from the grass roots up, starting with electing progressives on the local level by taking control of the local Democratic Party apparatus. Those progressives will graduate to the state and federal levels of government, but that will take time. Here in Oregon, it’s starting to bear fruit. Just look at Jeff Merkley. In the meantime, we need to fight on the federal level on an issue by issue basis, but most important, we need to preserve enough of the status quo to insure the ability of American voters to elect candidates. That’s what’s at stake in 2012, and Obama is the only choice of the two that will do that. Republicans have only two real goals: redistributing your wealth upward, and establishing a permanent Republican Regime of one-party rule.
41 Responses to “Why Obama Must Win in 2012”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
It’s a convincing argument you posit, and I reserve judgment – a vote for O is still going against my principles – the NDAA was for sure the coffin’s last nail – I will wait to see what the 99% will come up with over the next year – I’m also so against fracking which is posing an imminent threat to NY – if that goes through, as far as I’m concerned – what’s a jump into boiling water compared to the “frog’s way”? I’m disgusted and sickened that I’m placed in a position – yet again – to hold my nose in the voting booth – Guantanamo still thrives, Wall St and the banksters are still up to their old shenanigans, and Shumer is with them (some progressive he!) – My last hope is that the 99% delegation will insist on a progressive platform that can’t be denied and must be implemented – but keep up your O proselytizing TC – I may yet be convinced – now I just feel betrayed (you have no idea how hard I worked to get him elected!)
Lee, I know you’re upset about the NDAA, but there are a couple things you should know. First, Democrats attached an amendment stating that the administration could take no action that was not legal before it passed. Second, before Obama left for his vacation, he signed all pending legislation, except for the NDAA.
It is imperative that we vote for Obama. It is equally imperative that we help people get the required IDs, as odious as they are, and get folks to the polls. And then we have to be on the lookout for fraud while we’re voting — making sure our votes are recorded accurately before leaving the booth. The extremists among the Republicans have already proven that they will sink to any level to keep Democrats and even Independents from voting. They are a lawless bunch of thugs.
Any voter fraud will come from the Obama side, such as that in 2008. http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/obama-voter-fraud/2008/10/27/id/326134
News Videos on Obama Indiana voter fraud investigation, appears he did NOT have enough signatures to have been on the ballet! http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/search?q=indiana+voter+fraud
Welcome WM. 🙂
Voter fraud had been well documented by the DOJ under Crawford Caligula to be less that 1/1000th of 1%. News Max and Faux Noise are not credible sources.
Just a further note on your “sources”, WM – they have been thoroughly DEBUNKED: Fox Invents Voter Fraud, Indiana Edition
Then again, the whole repubican myth of “voter fraud” has been rigorously debunked as SOP LIES from the GOP. In fact a person is 39 times MORE likely to be struck by lightning than finding an actual act of voter fraud: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/12/15/389885/professor-blasts-bill-oreilly-says-need-for-voter-id-bills-is-the-same-for-bills-to-protect-people-from-lighnting/
I could literally list dozens more cites documenting the repubican myth of voter fraud – but that wold just create too much verifying work for TomCat. Besides, those two links have MORE links within them documenting the myth of voter fraud … not that that will stop repubicans from trying to spread that lie. It’s just the facts have a liberal bias.
The best we can expect is for people to vote their conscience. Unfortunately people on both sides do not do that. Call it group think, blind following of talking points, whatever. If someone wants to vote for Gary Johnson please don’t say they are throwing away a vote, or hurting another side.
“By voting for a third party candidate or staying home, you may get to enjoy the smug satisfaction of disapproval, but the only real effect you will have is to help the candidate furthest from your own views.”
It’s not Ralph Nader’s fault Gore lost the election. It’s not Perot’s fault Bush lost the election. Why would anyone vote for someone they do not really believe in? The lessor of two evils, is still evil. You sound like Michael Medved when he says voting for the Loosertarian candidate, is a wasted vote. BS!
I wish more people would vote their conscience instead of being swept up in some Obamamaniac fever as in 2008. They did not know the man, which is why they are unhappy with him now. The two political parties need to know millions are unsatisfied with their games about our serious national life. Obama’s political posturing has lost great strides that should have been made with a majority. What a mistake to tell people to just jump on the band wagon even if they really don’t believe in a candidate they vote for. That’s unamerican. I would hope someone so weak and uneducated would not vote. I can see it now. Someone standing line to vote asks the person behind them, “Who should I vote for?” They blindly vote for whoever the person behind theym says to vote for. Please just do not vote. It relays a false message to both the winner and loser of the race, and does not give politicians our true beliefs on where we want our politics to go.
I was mistaken about the Nader effect – still a problem to Gore, it was Wallace who put Nixon in the White House and destroyed Humphrey’s chance – that said a third party candidate, unless a guarantee to affect a positive change – is one that has traditionally brought about a dramatically offensive result! The country, as close to fascist dictatorial rule as it is, cannot afford a vote on “principle” or “conscience” unless it is a vote that will absolutely prevail! I know I’m contradicting myself – because both parties are complicit in advancing fascism – Obama is proving himself to be no exception, my concern is that he has abandoned the Constitution, as did most of our “progressive” democrats (Shumer and Gillebrand) my 2 senators!! I won’t vote for those senators again – I called and told them why – the NDAA decision is the one that most drastically sets up conditions for a dictator in this country – I’m hoping for a last 99% declaration to appear in July – presenting options that may drastically effect the elections and change the course the country is heading – it is my “last hope” – but to go in and “vote my conscience” without regard to the consequences of that vote – at a time like this could be quite literally suicide in my opinion!
Always remember, a non-vote, or a vote for a third party candidate instead of voting for the Democrat only helps the republicans.
I too donated time to Obama and I too feel betrayed. I am upset, angry and disappointed with him, but to be fair he can only do so much GOP majority rule. Also, I know that all of the things that I am unhappy about the GOP would do 1,000 times worse, so I will pick the lesser of two evils and vote for Obama and I may feel forced to donate time to him once again, but this time in fear of the GOP.
I agree with you both!
I, too, worked very hard to get him elected, and I feel just as betrayed and disappointed as you do. Having said that, I will still vote for Obama because the alternative is so very much worse.
Exactly, John.
Tom, the Republican party financed Ralph Nader’s campaign in 2000. Now many argue lost because Republicans stole the election, and that is why it is not Nader’s fault. I think that it was partially Nader’s fault, because, knowing he could not win, he allowed himself to be used. And if the progressives who voted for Nader in Florida had voted for Gore, the election would not have been close enough for Republicans to steal. The people most responsible, other than the fools who voted for Bush, were the people who did not vote and Floridians who voted for Nader..
On many of you’re complaints against Obama, you are right. It is sad that being right is is considered by many to be more important that putting our nation’s neck under a Republican jack boot.
It’s sad that simply complaining about Obama apparently was reason enough to receive months worth of hate mail.
It’s sad that my complaints have been read as hating Obama. I have said all along that I will probably vote for Obama. I don’t hate Obama, I think he is gutless.
It’s sad that instead of blaming outside candidates, we don’t discuss why people are voting for those candidates. Namely the lack of leadership in the main party candidates. If these candidates were properly reflecting the views of the voters there would be no complaints, and no worry of third party candidates getting enough votes to swing an election.
It’s sad that the Democrats don’t even have a nominee to challenge Obama, to voice the unheard views of millions of Democrats.
it’s sad that the party platform will not be influenced by other nominees ideas as normally happens in a contested nomination fight.
It’s sad that Democrats are acting like Republicans. Vote as one, or else. Democrats have never had the kind of blind voter unity as Republicans. I always thought that was a good thing about the Democratic party.
It’s sad that fear and paranoia has set in with Obamamaniacs. If Obama is so good why worry about his possibly losing the election? The sky is not falling chicken little.
Blame the candidate for chasing away votes, not some opponent who is practicing the “all American” duty of offering different ideas that the incumbent is not addressing, or failing to act on.
The ideas of third party candidates and fellow Republican/Democratic nominees have reshaped political parties for centuries. For the most part that has been a healthy maturation. To not question the leaders policies, or actions in office, is unhealthy.
it’s sad we have no faith in our fellow voters. They have rejected the kind of politics Republicans offer today. Intolerance is nothing new in American conservative politics. We are past the days of Dixicrats, which were defeated at the time.
Lee has a good point, but for me, if my neighbor needs a ride to the polls and has said he will vote for the Communist candidate, I will give him a ride to the polling place.
The mix is good and healthy. Certainly nothing to be feared.
Tom, I agree with much of what you have to say, but whatever victimization you might have experienced did not happen here. I have warned you before about treating others on this blog with respect, and for you to refer to those who disagree with you here as “Obamamaniacs” is not acceptable conduct here. If you cannot argue your point of view with civility, you are not welcome here, and you will be banned. This is your last warning.
It’s amazing, intolerant, and childish to be banned, or threatened to be banned from a POLITICAL blog because I use the term obamamaniac
Don’t worry I won’t be back
You can have your echo chamber
Seems disagreement is something you cannot handle
I have not been uncivil to anyone here
In fact Leslie is the one attacking my blog, yet you defend her
Have fun living in your echo chamber delusion and supporting and protecting haters and blog attackers like Leslie
I thought you were different, but your unreasonable attachment to haters like Leslie, and an unreasonable threat of banning me because I use the term “Obamamanic” proves you are the same
Tom, you were given two warnings, but your personal attacks continue. You are banned from this site.
Is the glass half empty or is it half full? As TC reminds us, look at the havoc – the threats to women’s rights, to the elderly, to SS, the voter suppression laws, the racism and anti-immigration laws, etc., etc., etc. – since 2010. To vote for a third party candidate or not to vote at all is to invite fascism, pure and simple. Look at every single GOP candidate one by one. They hate government, the middle class, women, etc., and they will sink to any level to destroy what is left of our Democracy. Most of them are certifiably unstable – or just plain kooky. A lot of astute writers who are far more knowledgeable than I am have made comparisons to 1930s Germany. This is not something to ignore or brush away as being hysterical, paranoid or just another conspiracy theory. There is but one choice.
Personally, I don’t expect the rest of the country to march to my drumbeat or adopt ALL my ideas. That’s living in some kind of unrealistic dream world. Maybe this is why I’m not as disappointed as so many on the far left. We are a diverse nation made up of people with diverse views who all think their views are the only views.
Here is how voting machines are being remotely tampered with:
http://www.truth-out.org/forensic-analysis-finds-venango-county/1323877922#.TviToXYe-bM.facebook
Leslie, I agree.
Obama has not been complicit in the advancement of Fascism. He’s been too optimistic for bipartisan votes. The Republicans are overtly out to get Obama out of the Whitehouse, therefore block any/everything. While we progressive believe (rightfully) Obama has been too namby-pamby, he no way is intentionally trying to destroy the US. Keep in mind that the Republicans are absolutely intent on destroying the country by turning it into a giant surfdom with the 1% owning everything.
The choice is clear. Makes no difference which goon the Republicans nominate, Obama must win or be sure your passport is up-to-date and ready to be used. If that’s not an option, then start hoarding like a survivalist. If the Republicans continue their evil march toward the destruction of the middle class, there will be homeless, desperate people, and you’ll be forced to protect what you have from them. It totally sucks.
the comparisons to 1930s Germany are because of the Republicans and what I describe in my comment and has nothing to do with Obama.
Marva, that’s the way I see it.
The erudite and liberal Gov. Adlai Stevenson (D-IL), twice nominated as the Democratic presidential candidate, was once heartily reassured on the campaign trail that he would receive the vote of every intelligent and compassionate American.
Gov. Stevenson responded, “That’s very kind of you – but unfortunately that’s not enough, madam. We need a majority.”
It’s going to be a long, arduous rode to prevent repubicans from prevailing … and EVERY VOTE WILL BE CRUCIAL!
Nameless, thanks for the injection of a little humor. He was certainly correct, and I fully agree.
We MUST support President Obama in this election. We can get our resources together and work for a third party during the next four years. But, please think about what we would have if we let this crop of Republicans win. We and are children and our planet cannot afford to do this, PLEASE, continue to put pressure on the president to do the progressive things he promised to do but give your vote to our president.
Welcome Anna! 🙂
You raise an excellent point here. I fully agree that we should oppose Obama on an issue by issue basis, when he is wrong, and which I have done since before he was elected. This crop of Republicans will destroy everything about this nation that we hold dear.
I don’t think we MUST vote for Obama – in fact I would really like to make him sweat – those of you who are so frightened of the alternative – have reason, and yet – I’m so appalled that our president – educated as he is in constitutional law would deliberately ignore it – and it causes me to wonder if he doesn’t actually have motives that may be as outrageous as the GOP! It’s a wonder to me that he deliberately allowed this invitation to dictatorial leadership to be slipped by without a word!!!! It’s enough to question his motives and to question the motivation that allowed him to advocate such an extremist position! NO I don’t think a blanket vote for Obama is necessarily better – before this particular vote I might have – but it seems to me – this is impeachable – and to support a president that would allow it is insane!
See my earlier comment to you. Obama is an improvement over Bush, and if this generation of Republicans takes control, you’ll miss Bush.
He may be the least of the evils but he is still not a very good president. I wish there was a viable 3rd party alternative out there (and do NOT say Ron Paul, you Libertarian fruitcakes!)
Welcome, Nick. 🙂
If that were the case, it would be different, and I agree that Ron Paul would be a disaster. That said, would you please read our rules page? “you libertarian fruitcakes” appears to be directed at libertarians that have commented here, and we treat each other with respect, even supporters of Ron Paul.
If you want to see what happens when you put an ultra conservative in office with an ultra conservative majority group of representatives, look no further than Canada. In a story that I posted on Care2, “Harper’s majority Conservative locomotive runs down opponents, barrels into 2012”, PM Harper, a Baby Bush wannabe, makes clear that he and his party are going to do things their way, regardless, even though they only garnered 39.6% of the popular vote (I have previously reported in error the popular vote as 36.9% — bankers trick, I accidentally reversed some digits).
From the Canadian Press — “It’s time for the wheat board and others who have been standing in the way to realize that this train is barrelling down a Prairie track,” Harper warned during an October stop in Regina. “You’re much better to get on it than to lie on the tracks, because this is going ahead.” . . .
“. . . that darkly forewarned that abortion, gay marriage and capital punishment may all be on the Conservative radar.” . . . “And one by one, the values we cherish as Canadians will be gone,” Chretien lamented.
Yes our two countries are different, but some the issues are the same. And certainly the direction is the same. The US needs to stop that Republican/Teabagger locomotive or there will be a monumental train wreck, the likes of which has likely not been seen before.
I have said it many times before, I was excited for the American people when Mr Obama was elected. I saw change coming, good change. The Baby Bush Republican/Teabagger locomotive was on the tracks for 8 years creating havoc through economic policy and wars. In 2008 the American people wanted and needed a change so they elected Mr Obama to stop the train and reverse the direction. But trains don’t stop on a dime! Unfortunately, the American voters failed to realise this and became sufficiently frustrated that in 2010, they tied the engineer’s hands with a Republican/Teabagger dominated Congress, and also loaded the states with Republican/Teabagger governments. Mr Obama in an interview with Barbara Walters said his biggest mistake was trying too hard to work with the Republican/Teabaggers on a bipartisan basis. We’ve seen him grow some spine lately and hopefully this will continue. But it is up to the electorate to hold his feet to the fire to get things done. The Republican/Teabagger locomotive can be turned around but only by voting Mr Obama in for a second term.
Voting Green or any other party will only serve to split the vote at this time and likely launch another Republican/Teabagger locomotive. Before you can realistically move your vote, you must have a viable option, and in the US that does not exist, yet. As TomCat says, “The way to make that kind of change happen is from the grass roots up, starting with electing progressives on the local level by taking control of the local Democratic Party apparatus. Those progressives will graduate to the state and federal levels of government, but that will take time.” So re-elect Mr Obama in 2012, keep his feet to the fire, and start building an alternative.
There is an old saying that Rome wasn’t built in a day. But it sure fell in a hurry!
The American people gave Obama 2 years of majority. They did their job. They became frustrated watching Obama cave to the obvious irrational Republicans and are still wondering why is he playing games with these nuts? Obama is a perfect case of “actions speak louder than words.” Of course a President cannot fix everything in 2 years, but the public’s perception is that he wasn’t fighting hard enough. The people knew it would be a hard fight, they thought they elected a hard fighter. Hope lost.
Thank you Lynn. I agree.
Obama just signed the bill to detain Americans suspected of terrorism indefinitely. With no lawyer and no trial. This is unconstitutional. This destroys our democracy. 1. This must be changed. 2. This does not make Obama a good candidate any more. He should step down and another candidate should go in. One with major pushes for the environment like Gore. If Obama wants to change what he did and apologize, that might make him a consideration.
Welcome Volarte. 🙂
You had better check your facts. Before Obama left for vacation, he signed all other pending legislation, bit left that bill on his desk, unsigned.
Written in response to some of the comments on Care2
I do not support wholesale bail outs of banks, but in this case, I believe it was necessary to keep the country from diving into a depression, not sliding but diving. I think where a big mistake was made was not, as I understand it to be, having a mandatory repayment plan to the government and not having other caveats such as tieing bankster salaries and bonuses directly to recovery and government repayment. Bankster salaries and bonuses should also be tied to the effect of predatory lending, especially in the housing area. How many banksters were warm and cozy in their multi million dollar mansions while ordinary Americans were being forced out into the cold?
Nancy M, you say “His cabinet is full of ceos!!”. So when did you last ask to participate in Mr Obama’s cabinet? If anybody is going to provide advice to a president, they must have an education in law, economics or some other discipline, but they must also have broad experience and an ability to critically think about issues at a national level, and yet still see the details. Elizabeth Warren has that and once she is elected, I hope that Mr Obama will have her in his cabinet. And she IS FOR MIDDLE CLASS AMERICANS. Not everybody has a taste for the advising role because it means being second fiddle in the orchestra. Do you have what it takes? Are you prepared to get out there to get elected and then do what it takes? If so, then start building your campaign now.
It is really easy to be an armchair quarterback, sitting behind a computer postulating decisions for the country. But all the information needed is not available on-line, or in the papers or on the television. Maybe something that could work, I say COULD assuming the right people are involved, is a citizen’s advisory council. Everyday Americans from all sorts of backgrounds and all across the country willing to work, even on a volunteer basis, to provide input to the President from a grassroots perspective.
Wasn’t it John F Kennedy who said “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”
Written in response to some of the comments on Care2
John G “Sorry TomCat but you are advocating the end of denocracy here. The shame of our system is that we’ve allowed two parties that represent so few of us by registration, take over the process.”
John, TC is not advocating the end of democracy but rather recovering democracy from the hole it is in. You say that you are voting Green. But is the Green Party viable at this time? Can the American people reasonably elect sufficient Green Party representatives in the Congress so as not to have the same situation in Congress that now exists — one party dominating for no other reason than to see a sitting president destroyed? As to electing the president, that is up to the Electoral College and that body’s make up, as I understand, is made up of representatives from each state. Those representatives are chosen, or elected — several different methods are used — depending on the state. And right now there is a preponderence of Republican/Teabagger states, and some (Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Florida to name a few) have shown a propensity for absolute corruption of the democratic ideals.
This political quagmire will not be fixed overnight, but if you start at the grassroots level and build, you can have a viable and effective alternative. As an example, look to Canada — the national New Democrat Party (which has its roots in the old CCF party founded by Tommy Douglas who was from the Prairies) was nowhere on the horizon 50 – 60 years ago. But over that time, their grassroots approach built a party that eventually had seats in Parliament, but not enough. During the last election in 2011, they finally garnered enough seats to become the official opposition for the first time in our federal politics. Canada now has one member in Parliament from the Green Party, and she didn’t get there over a year or two. The Greens have been trying for at least 10 years. My point is not a lesson in Canadian politics, but rather an example of building a viable alternative. Time is the big factor. If people think that splitting the vote or not voting at all is the only thing that they can do to remain true to their principles, then I suggest that you can not eat principles! I am likewise not suggesting abandonment of principles but rather taking a broader look at the situation.
Thanks, Lynn, but if we try to combine comments from here and C2, it will become hopelessly confused. Anyone there is welcome to comment here.
I have backed Obama from the beginning– I still do– In spite of the obvious flaws in his leadership style—- Any of the GOP candidates running would accelerate the disaster coming– —we cannot let that happen– I have no patience with those who will not vote unless the candidate meets every specification— well none are going to walk on water– which Obama was expected to do– We the People have roles to play also—In my view — We allow ourselves to be distracted from the real problems by quibbling about non issue straw targets—ignoring the elephant in the room- I suggest– Gay marriage—DOMA– is a false target meant to distract—
I do not want to trigger an argument about “Gay Rights” Only to point out it is not a real target—-it only takes our attention away from the big issues—-Doubt me ? Just watch — every time a real problem boils to the surface– “Gay– or abortion ‘ or school prayer’ — and a host of other things comes up to distract– now an real matter of the unconstitutional bill came up- and was passed— seems to me much more important than minor issues–
I have little patience with those who mutter- …’ no difference in parties.’.. well this year it seems pretty apparent there is a huge difference—biggest problem with the Democrats seems to be- they don’ know how to fight dirty– as the GOP tea baggers sure do–
So Mr President– take the gloves off and fight– go for the jugular— hit below the belt– fight like your opponents do-
Bingo!