Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
"The change we seek will never emanate from Washington, DC." ...which is why Rick Perry wants to be President: to preserve the status quo.
But of course, sadly, he will have my reluctant vote.
Because what else can I do?
Of course, I'd rather vote for neither, but the two-party system really has us by the balls, doesn't it?
The two-party system only has us by the balls if we accept that it does.
@13 - He's like a less stupid, more corrupt GWB who won't even need a Cheney-esque VP to tell him what to do. :(
Unfortunately, and I'm pretty sure most of you are aware of this, he's working from within a irreparably broken legislative system that handcuffs him from every conceivable angle.
So with no other options available, he finally opted for the only other seemingly reasonable option that had a chance to prevent the downgrade. Had he not agreed to that sorry excuse for a budget, we would've experienced the same (or potentially much worse) ramifications and a far more maniacal response from the right.
Oh, and screw Rick Perry.
Sorry, you're writing for the wrong rag. It only took until comment 3 to get to the "What's the difference?" comment.
These are the same folks who believed that there was no difference between Gore and Bush, so they voted for Nader.
So of course they don't think there's any difference between Obama and Perry.
Seriously, Sloggers are the Republican Party's best friend.
Thanks, 20. I couldn't have said it better.
He could've tied any extension of the Bush tax cuts to their raising the debt ceiling. Or he fucking could've used his LEGAL powers granted to him by the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling himself.
And when will Americans finally learn that their president doesn't just get to set policy and make law all on his own? Obama can't get stuff done when the Republicans are spending all of their energy trying to tank the economy so that people won't re-elect him.
Just because you have standards, doesn't mean you're blind to differences. Would Obama be better than Perry? Most likely (though I do think that there's a far from imaginary chance that having such an openly far-right president during this period of unending high unemployment could possible galvanize the left in a way having a falsely liberal president makes impossible, just typin').
I'm not blind to the differences betwixt the candidates, the problem is I just can't, like you can apparently, blind myself to the knowledge that Obama has ordered the assassination of US citizens, that he has institutionalized permanent detention w/o trial, that he has chosen to hold no one accountable for torture. What's so messed up about actually having standards for politicians you support, and refusing to vote for those that don't meet them?
That's called a weak defense.
Still, Perry would be a breath of fresh air. It takes a Repubican Texas governor to clean up the depravity left by a Demoncratic president. Also, Anita Perry will be a delightful fit in the east wing.
He could have acted like he was large and in charge the first 2 years (which he was with a Democratic Congress). But no.
Didn't cave on the debt ceiling? He held out and held out and at the last minute it got done? Not much for leadership there.
It's not that he's a bad leader but his style is compromise and consensus and that ain't the Republican way and won't ever be. They are vicious, myopic people who want to burn this country to the ground if they have to in order to get control back. (Yes, I believe that.)
Obama has got to man up and start ignoring them. Just push the agenda he elected on and just tell them no the same number of times they say no to him.
As far as this Rick Perry joke, I think he will fail. He has shitloads in common with GW, but he is not as earnest.
Go Obama. Yeah, he's not me, he doesn't agree with everything I think, but he is stopping the bleeding and working with people that would test every last sane nerve of every one of us.
Point by point, he has made huge strides on all the major issues UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. The circumstances being the hard core red state CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY, just like us. If you want to ignore the circumstances, then you are not being serious about what is going on, and you are just using the forum to work out your daddy issues. Sorry, but grow up.
But if your proposed solution is anything along the lines of teaching the Democrats a lesson by withholding your support, I have no time for you. You hate Obama for compromising with conservatives, but your proposed solution amounts to complete capitulation. And the more effectively you evangelize for the capitulation-by-principle you so emphatically advocate, the more swiftly your complete disenfranchisement will proceed.
Taking your ball and going home is not a winning option.
And I for one don't hate Obama for compromising with conservatives, I hate Obama for BEING a conservative. A progressive wouldn't turn a blind eye to government authorized torture, wouldn't authorize permanent detention w/o trial, wouldn't authorize the assassination of US citizens w/o trial, wouldn't extend tax breaks for the uber wealthy while cutting programs for the poor in a recession with monstrous unemployment.
It's not capitulation if I actually don't want him to win. I'm in the fucking game, man. What part of "trying to get people to realize they're only trapped in the two-party system as long as they believe they are" am I not explaining enough? If enough progressives and independents disenfranchised with Obama finally realize it, then we just finally got our enfranchisement back.