Tag Archives: Romney

Sweet 16

Posted on by

By Jay Hansen

It’s amazing how much the media, and our own citizens, have been obsessing over 2016. We just had a damn presidential election, keep your pants on! That’s still nearly four years away! I’ve been contemplating why this is (which I had plenty of time to do this past week), and I think it’s much more than just the usual American obsession with horserace politics. When it gets down to it, 2016 has the potential to be our first real presidential election in a long, long time. What do I mean by real? And how long has it been? Allow me to elaborate.

 

2012 – Obama vs. Romney

Despite what the bubble of self-delusion created by the right-wing propaganda machine told the American people, 2012 was largely a no-contest election. The actual numbers were overwhelmingly in Obama’s favor pretty much from day one of campaigning for the general election. Plus, the Republican Party was just in shambles. Their list of candidates consisted of guys like Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, and out of all of them the one that emerged as the “strongest” was… Mitt Romney? The plastic man from Massachusetts that’s lost almost every election he’s ever been in? The guy who was passed over for Vice President in 2008 for Sarah Palin? He was the best the party could do? There was a lot of drummed-up panic over the 2012 horserace between these two guys, but for the most part it was a no contest, and any election that is a no contest does not meet the requirements of a real Presidential election in my book.

 

2008 – Obama vs. McCain

2008 was an even bigger no contest than 2012. We were just coming out of the Bush administration, which had approval ratings in the 20% range at its lowest. Knowing how the typical, uninformed American voter thinks, it wouldn’t have mattered who was on either side of the ticket in this election; the Republicans were going to lose. Dwight Eisenhower could have come back from the dead to run against Mickey Mouse and he still would have lost because he was a Republican. This was made ever more clear when Obama won this election with a staggering 365 electoral votes and nearly 53% of the popular vote.

 

2004 – Kerry vs. Bush

While 2004 certainly wasn’t a “no contest,” it was also not a real election because both candidates were so abysmally horrible. Seriously, these two made Obama and Romney look like Clinton and Reagan, or the two Roosevelts running against one another. Many people who hadn’t already started to lose faith in government during and immediately after this election had now because 2004 was such an unfair decision. It also didn’t help that this was an incumbency election, which are always less exciting because the incumbent almost always has the upper hand. Bush didn’t necessarily have a strong one in 2004, but that wasn’t because of his high quality; it was because of an equally poor quality in both candidates.

 

2000 – Gore vs. Bush

This is the most recent presidential election that could even be considered “real,” at least in terms of the campaign. For most Americans, the decision was quite tough because most American voters are brainless. We were just coming out of the Clinton administration, which had done wonders for the economy, created a budgetary surplus, and ushered in a new golden age for America (which George W. Bush managed to wreck almost instantly). But, then again, Clinton cheated on his wife in office… and that in the minds of most Americans was apparently an unforgivable sin. So in terms of campaigning, the nation was really split, and this was similarly made clear on election day. Most people reading this likely remember the counting, re-counting, and re-counting again debacle that followed the 2000 election because the race was so mind-bogglingly close. The final “official” results awarded George W. Bush 271 electoral votes, which is literally the bare minimum a candidate can get and become President, and he inarguably lost in the popular vote with only 47.9%. This was only the fourth time in US history a candidate won the presidency without winning the popular vote. Of course, most people know that, but what most don’t know is that according to re-counts of the individual county-by-county votes in Florida, Al Gore won Florida, not Bush, meaning the 25 electoral votes would have been awarded to him and not Bush, giving Gore the victory in 2000 with 291 electoral votes over Bush’s 246. The problem is the Supreme Court voted 7-2 to block this last recount of the votes, awarding the presidency to Bush. It’s also noteworthy that at the time, seven of the Supreme Court Justices were Republican-appointed.

Ultimately, one could make the case that 2000 was a very real presidential election given how tough and divisive the campaign was, but when it comes to the actual election, 2000 was the closest thing to a fraudulent election the United States has ever had in modern history.

 

1996 – Clinton vs. Dole

Poor Bob Dole… poor, poor Bob Dole. You thought 2008 was a no contest? Like I said, Clinton was building the newest golden age for America and presiding over a massive economic boom. Bob Dole was no more the Republican candidate than sacrificial lamb; his party had to run someone against Clinton, but who could they get to commit that act of political suicide? The answer; Bob Dole, who lost to Bill Clinton’s mind-blowing 379 electoral votes. To be honest, I barely remember this election; it’s the first presidential election in my memory. Even as a kid though, I remembered how bad Dole was suffering. I specifically remembered this one SNL sketch where Bob Dole had a nightmare about the disastrous debates he was having with Clinton in which he was debating President Thomas J. Whitmore, the president played by Bill Pullman in the 1996 movie Independence Day.

 

(Also, this)

So 1996 was no contest, and thus not a real election. That means we have to go back EVEN FURTHER to…

 

1992 – Clinton vs. Bush

Now this was an interesting election. George H.W. Bush was the incumbent, meaning there was an unspoken advantage attached to his name, albeit a weak one. At the same time though, Bush had suffered a terrible fall because of an economic recession, breaking a promise to not raise taxes, and the increasing irrelevance of his foreign policy skills. However, at the same time the Republicans had won the past three presidential elections in landslides… Then along comes Bill “Bubba” Clinton from hillbilly Arkansas with the social and political skills to appeal to both liberals and conservatives.

The sad part is though… I have no memory of this election at all. I was five when the campaigning started. I’m only basing my judgment of this election as a “real” one based on what I can read in history, and even then it’s questionable given the massive landslide by which Clinton won. I wish I could have been around to see this election because it must have been an interesting one. Heck, now that I think about it, given that I was only nine when the 1996 election came around, there hasn’t been a presidential election in my lifetime without the 24-hour news circuit.

Considering all of that, it’s been twenty years since we’ve seen a real presidential election, which is pretty much my entire memorable life. Now though, Americans are starting to wake up and realize how full of crap the Democrats and Republicans are based on the disturbing similarities between Obama and his predecessor George Bush. Obama has only prevented things from getting worse, while doing little to improve them in the long-term. Obama’s failures to be an actual progressive could harm the Democrats in 2016 the same way Bush’s incompetence harmed Republicans in 2008, but it couldn’t possibly be to the same degree unless there’s a catastrophic financial collapse before November, 2016… which is totally possible given that Obama has only continued Bush’s policies on derivatives and the banks.

Right now for candidates we’re looking at Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Hilary Clinton, and Joe Biden. Surely more will be thrown in over the next few years, as I’ve already predicted, but one thing is for sure; assuming Obama continues his same game of “extend and pretend” successfully, and Republicans… you know, actually try with legitimate, non-crazy candidates, 2016 will prove to be a truly interesting presidential election.

The Year the GOP Bubble Burst

Posted on by

By Jay Hansen

As 2012 finally wraps up in these next few hours, I find myself pondering what this year will be remembered for, at least politically speaking. The obvious answer is the presidential election, but those happen every four years. What was the big political meta-event that defined the year? Frankly, I think 2012 may be remembered as the year the GOP bubble finally popped.

What exactly do I mean by that? Surely I don’t just mean the election, or even elections, in November. Political tides come and go, and just because Democrats picked up seats in 2012 doesn’t mean they’re going to pick up more, or even retain what they have, in 2014. Hell, if anything, odds are they’re going to lose seats in 2014 as the incumbent president’s party usually does under tough economic times. I’m never a fan of being a sore winner, so I didn’t overly-ambitiously proclaim that the Republican Party is gone for good and Democrats will never lose control of the Senate or anything like that after the election, nor is this what I’m doing now. What I can’t help but feel is the rattling the Republican establishment, and many of its blind party followers, felt this year from multiple events left them shaken. In today’s America, if something is powerful enough to shake a Republican, it’s damn powerful.

Let me explain what I’m talking about. The best example of this “bubble bursting” was in fact on election night. The famous FOX “News” Karl Rove meltdown was the beginning of it, but as the days wore on we learned that Romney genuinely believed that he had this election in the bag, as did his entire campaign, party, and ideological followers within the media. He was so over confident that he was sure of himself that he was going to win Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Ohio, so in the last week of the campaign he started working in Pennsylvania, one of the most solidly blue states in America. This puzzled countless political experts and commentators, myself included. The numbers just weren’t on his side, and I don’t just mean in Pennsylvania. In Wisconsin, Minnesota, and even Ohio Romney was behind in all credible polling agencies and pollster analyses, yet for some reason Romney’s team was convinced he’d win them. Romney didn’t even write a concession speech until hours after all major news networks had called the election for Obama. The problem, of course, was that Romney wasn’t using “credible” numbers. Romney only used internal polling and data collection from… you guessed it… FOX “news” and conservative media, who were shouting from the rooftops every day that Romney was going to win in an attempt to make his victory seem inevitable to the standard conservative media audience, bolstering moral amongst Republican voters and attempting to disenfranchise some people who would have otherwise voted for Obama to not vote at all.

Romney, his campaign, his supporters, his voters, and most of all the Republican Party fell for their own propaganda. It made them over confident and cocky, leading them to make extremely poor decisions in campaign advertising, spending, and efforts in the wrong states, and thus at least in part contributing to his crushing defeat in the November election.

Look, I know any time a Presidential election involves challenging an incumbent the challenging party tends to not have their house in proper order, at least in modern politics (John Kerry, Bob Dole, Michael Dukakis, etc), so I know taking this as some end-all liberal victory is not the right approach. What I’m trying to point out here is that people in conservative media will just outright lie about the facts to convince their audience that they are superior. The Romney campaign’s dismayed and speechless response to their nearly statistically inevitable, crushing loss was when the bubble broke, and I don’t think enough people realized it.

The creators of the propaganda and false information were releasing data that was just wrong. It disagreed with virtually all credible information sources, but they kept putting it out there anyway in an attempt to sway or frame the conversation in America. They kept doing it so much that the creators of the false information began to believe it as true. What happened in November should have served as a wake-up call for every American; the American right-wing does not use facts. They do not have facts on their side, they are dishonest, they lie, and generally do whatever it takes to win no matter how unethical or questionable. The party establishment got a cold reminder of this in 2012. It was almost like when Romney lost they had an awkward silent moment back at headquarters when they all remembered “oh yeah, we lie. I forgot that. I guess that’s why our numbers didn’t add up with anyone else’s. They were lies.”

But it goes beyond just the Presidential election too. It may have been the biggest needle to pop the GOP bubble, but it certainly wasn’t the only one. It was also popped by science. Climate change denial has been reduced to pseudo-science at best. State plans to divert public education students into religious, private schools fell flat in Louisiana. Politicians who have voiced or even indicated that they don’t believe in the Big Bang theory, evolution, or believe that the world is only a few thousand years old did great, possibly irrevocable damage to their reputations. Worst of all though were the Republicans that basically said to the world they have no clue how female reproduction works, most notably Todd Akin of Missouri who claimed the female body is capable of preventing pregnancy if she is raped, which is based in no science whatsoever save the ludicrous, unfounded writing of an ultra-conservative “doctor” John Wilke. Tragically, Wilke’s not some lone nut; it turns out he’s campaigned for Romney in the past and his work is the foundation of most Republican anti-choice ideology.

The Republican bubble was popped by progressive ideological victories as well. We now have ten states (counting the District of Columbia) wherein gay marriage is legal, and two where marijuana is completely legal for recreational use, let alone medical. We even had our first state propose a state question that would legalize doctor-assisted suicide in Massachusetts. Sure, it didn’t pass, but the fact that it even appeared on a ballot shows great progress towards left-wing ideology, and hopefully a return to sanity in this nation’s political spectrum.

The Republican bubble was popped most violently by the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. It’s now become painfully obvious that guns have gotten out of hand in America today, and the conservative argument that more guns equals less gun violence is indisputably false, as blatantly obvious as that already was to a vast majority of Americans. More people have taken an interest in gun control after this shooting than ever before in recent history, and normally outspoken, chest-beating gun-nuts have fallen unusually silent. When they do talk, they either makes buffoons of themselves or are strongly, immediately criticized by even our weak-sauce mainstream media.

The Republican bubble was also popped, or at least it very well could have been, by the most underreported story of the year, and it really ties in to my previous points about FOX “News” and the bubble of reality it creates. Did you know that FOX “News” bribed General Petraeus to run for President against Obama on the Republican ticket? In 2011, FOX national security analyst Kathleen McFarland spoke with General Petraeus and told him that Roger Ailes, President of FOX, said that if Obama does not offer Petraeus the position of Joint Chiefs of Staff then he should resign and campaign for the Republican nomination. If he did so, Roger Ailes promised to quit FOX to run Petraeus’ campaign. More than that, Rupert Murdoch, owner of News Corp, would fund his campaign for him.

But no, FOX “News” is “fair and balanced,” right? If this story doesn’t convince you that the guys operating FOX have a specific political agenda I don’t know what will. The written word really can’t do this story justice; I encourage you to click the hyperlink to hear the tones and context of Petraeus ooing and awing over FOX, and to fully comprehend the implications of one of our top generals being given “orders” from the President of FOX “News.”

FOX and the establishment conservative media all have a specific, aggressively pursued political agenda. They misrepresent the facts and sometimes outright lie about the numbers and disregard anything that disagrees with them no matter how credible or factual. This is the absolute least that we’ve learned beyond reasonable doubt in this bubble-popping year. Add to it the fundamental anti-science reputation and ideology of the party, and the massive ideological losses they suffered when it comes to the war on drugs, gay marriage, abortion, and indirectly immigration and the Latino vote, I honestly don’t see a future for the Republican Party that doesn’t involve them changing.

It’s not just me saying that though; the pollster guru of the 2012 election Nate Silver had a dire warning to the Republican Party after the election. Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are strongly locked up as blue states now despite what Romney believed. Virginia, a longtime swing state, is on the verge of becoming blue. North Carolina, a member of the old, dependable “southern strategy” confederacy is in full swing. Now, with the changes the Latino vote is bringing amongst other minorities, within the next decade we could see Arizona or maybe even Texas come in play as swing states.

It’s not all bad news for Republicans though; they did have two major victories this year. Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin became the first Governor in history to survive a recall election with the help of millions of dollars from out-of-state donors, and after years of campaigning they managed to turn Michigan, the very heart of the union-worker’s America, into a right to work state, greatly endangering and weakening unions. They only managed that, however, with the most abject lie of 2012 outside of the Presidential elections, given that Governor Rick Snyder promised in his campaign that right to work was not on his agenda and he would not do it. So congratulations Republicans; you managed to re-elect a crooked Governor and brazenly lied to your voters in order to further degrade worker pay, benefits, and the decency with which we treat them.

The only reason either of these two things happened, however, was because of the severe lack of regulations and restrictions on campaign finance. Snyder may have still managed to win his election and get his right to work law through, but I find it extremely unlikely that Walker would have still won re-election without his treasure trove of money flowing in from out-of-state donors, people who weren’t supposed to have any say in Wisconsin state politics. Victories like this, and the fact that I’m not a fortune teller, least of all for small-scale politics of which party wins or loses how many seats in what particular election, keep me from saying that the American right-wing as we know it is done for simply because of this year’s Presidential and Congressional elections. Once we can overturn Citizens United, however, and can again limit and regulate political bribery, the question of whether the Republican Party in its current form can stand the test of time will finally become one worth giving heavy consideration. So maybe, if we’re going to be making any new years resolutions tonight, consider resolving to do more to help efforts to overturn Citizens United, such as helping more with Wolf-PAC. We need all the support we can get.

While I’ve had Auld Lang Syne stuck in my head all day, I thought I’d leave you with something a little more fitting for this particular look back at the lessons learned from this year. Happy 2013 everyone.

A Blame Game of Biblical Proportions

Posted on by

By Jay Hansen

I’ve now seen two articles about right-wing members of the media in such absolute dissolution over Obama’s victory that they’re actually blaming God. Seriously, first they blamed the pollsters that dared to use math, then they blamed Romney for being a bad candidate, then they blamed Karl Rove, then they blamed it on false claims of voter fraud, then they blamed their loss on the fact that black people and minorities are allowed to vote, and now at least two major players amongst American conservatives are demanding that God “answer” for letting Obama win. Glenn Beck and Pat Robertson are saying that God must answer to them.

Can you say ego problem? I mean (and quite appropriately so), Jesus Christ guys.

Okay, okay, to be fair, the story about Glenn Beck is almost certainly fake. It was initially written by Philip Maddock, a satirist. The mark of a good satire, though, is if it is undistinguishable it from the truth. On top of that, similarly fashioned comments from the equally right-wing and nutty Pat Robertson actually made me think twice about Maddock’s article. Robertson had claimed “God told him” Obama would be defeated. One day after the election he recanted, asking of God “what’d I miss?” and “why?” His open-ended, vague word choice made his intent a little unclear, but his tone (which you can listen to in the story’s hyperlink) was as if he was asking “why God? How could you allow Obama to win again?” or at least “why did I misread you” or “why did you not tell me the truth?” Overall, Robertson’s message straddled the gap between ordinary prayer and a certain form of a pleading demand for an answer.

If this story was the only incident of such angry or deeply sorrowful pleas I’d say I’m looking too much into it. The problem is I’ve seen people from Facebook to media commentators asking in genuine confusion how God could allow Obama’s victory. To the people asking that I have one very simple answer.

God doesn’t vote.

The United States of America was founded as, still is, and always will be a country of the people, by the people, and for the people. Please notice that God is nowhere in that process. America was the first major nation of the world that decided neither God nor any other god shall ever be part of the government that operates it. The fact of the matter is Obama got more votes. He really did win the election, both in the electoral college and popular votes. Obama won because he got more votes from real American voters, all mortal human beings.

I just seriously had to type out “mortal human beings” in a serious conversation about whether God influenced this election or not as if I’m talking about some damn fantasy game or the Dark Ages were “the divine” really did pick our leaders. Why is this conversation even taking place in America in the 21st century by anyone, let alone prominent figures of conservative ideology?

If Republicans do want to play by this logic, let’s take a look at this election through a Christian lens that believes in God. Social conservatives believe they’re doing “God’s work” by supporting the Republican Party and the policies thereof, but in a fair election Obama won. There are only two possible conclusions that could be drawn from this occurrence; either God is not all powerful and does not intervene in the affairs of Earth or he wanted Obama to win.

If the former is true, then that means this world is ours to make of it whatever we wish. The amount of good and bad in the world is entirely dependent upon the people who run it, and God’s opinion holds no say in it. This seems directly contradictory to Christian belief as it is held by many social conservatives in America, however. Therefore, the more logical conclusion is that God wanted Obama to win. This would actually make a lot of sense based on the tenants of Jesus and the New Testament; healing the sick, feeding the hungry, helping those in need, putting others ahead of one’s self, and otherwise being generous and kind to all people. When considering the beliefs of Jesus Christ and what he preached, Obama is significantly more Christ-like than Romney ever was, or ever could be.

Which is exactly why conservatives really don’t want, or at least shouldn’t want, religion in government, including their own. When combining the two institutions there’s the obvious problem of which religion to pick, because if Christianity is allowed to dictate the government’s policies and law, why wouldn’t Islam? Or Judaism? Or any of the countless ideologies of Paganism? On top of that though, conservatives don’t even really want a Christian-specific government, because as much as they won’t admit it such a government is extremely counter-intuitive to their own ideology. First of all there would be massive wealth re-distribution that at least qualifies as Socialism if not outright Communism. There would be major caps and limitations on profit and income imposed, since the bible itself says you cannot serve both God and money. Any surplus income you would make above that point would be given to the impoverished and downtrodden. The very notion of such government policy is the stuff of right-wing conspiracy theories. Some could make the argument that at least conservatives would win on social issues under such a government, but I’m here to tell you… not really. The bible doesn’t directly indicate anything about abortion, except in the few places where it seems to support it. As for gay marriage, the primary passage used to justify opposition to it is from the Old Testament where male homosexuality is considered untraditional and those that engage in it should be stoned. According to some theologians, when Jesus “died for mankind’s sins” that was really almost a political move on the part of Christians because so many of the rules of the Old Testament were so bizarre and out of date. Basically, this interpretation was them saying “yeah, all those weird, nonsensical, random rules from the Old Testament just don’t apply any more.” This would include the passage about homosexuality.

If Jesus’ death isn’t interpreted that way, though, then that means all the Old Testament rules would be enacted into law by the government. Eating shrimp would be forbidden. Wearing clothing of more than one fabric would be forbidden. Slavery would still be legal. Law would mandate women be banished from their houses during their periods and they would be forbidden to touch men during this time. Women would also be banned from having contentious thoughts and suffer punishment if they did. Hilariously enough, though, female-on-female homosexuality would still be legal.

Everything for which conservatives stand, from small government to individual liberty, is the complete and utter opposite under a fully Christian government. Especially when combined with the results of the 2012 election and the interpretation of it as God’s will, social conservatives are fighting for the exact opposite of absolutely everything God wants, yet proclaim themselves to be his champions carrying out his will.

Moreover, if God was picking our leaders on these principles, why did he pick Obama? Relative to countless other politicians in this country, he’s terrible at taking care of the poor! I’d imagine God would at least want a real progressive like Elizabeth Warren, Russ Feingold, or Bernie Sanders. Shit, based on what we’ve seen here, God would pick a Communist to be President.

This is why it’s dangerous to try and interpret God’s will. Does he want us to have slaves or not? Does he want women to have equal rights or not? Does he want us to care for the poor and the weak or not? Did he want Obama or Romney to win the election?

What does the Picard want?

So really I think it’s best for all of us if we don’t try to attribute the outcome of this election to God or his will. Obama won because he got more votes. Period. That’s how this country works, that’s how democracy works. Given that, maybe it’s not God’s fault Republicans lost. It’s not Romney’s fault, it’s not Rove’s fault, it’s not minorities’ faults; maybe, just maybe, conservative ideology just sucks and Americans disagree with it. That’s why they lost.

We’re Fucked

Posted on by

By Jay Hansen

I won’t hesitate a second to burst everyone’s post-election bubble. Campaigning can make you forget a man’s flaws.

Election results are in! Obama just won a second term in office. So, needless to say, we’re pretty fucked. Yeah, we’re pretty darned fucked.

These aren’t my words, of course, they’re the words of Neil Barofsky, former Inspector General of TARP, and Christina Romer, former chair of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers. These two economic experts agree; Obama has done nothing to fix the economic instability in the system that caused the crash in the first place. Given how weakly the Obama administration is barley propping up most of the financial sector and the general economy, another crash is inevitable, and almost certainly in the next four years. Obama did “financial reform” that was an absolute joke that did nothing to regulate or prevent the same risky behavior that caused the crash, and yet Obama hangs the “mission accomplished” banner and walks away from the issue (and the financial sector still hates him for even trying to regulate them a teeny, tiny bit). Here’s Barofsky on Obama’s “historic” financial reform;

“The incentives are all still in place for the too big to fail banks to accumulate dangerous amounts of risk in the quest for short-term profits with the assurance that if their bets do not pay off, they (and most importantly from the perspective of market discipline) and their counterparties / creditors) will be bailed out by the government. Combine that with a lack of accountability for bad/fraudulent behavior, and you have a toxic cocktail that will bring about another crisis. Regulatory reform did nothing to change those incentives.”

Romney criticized Obama for this during the first debate, which made my blood boil, as it was inarguably Republicans in Congress (specifically Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts) that watered-down financial regulation to prevent the abolishment of the policy of too big to fail. Given that, it’s impossible to say that Romney would have done any better, or done any more to stop this exact risky behavior. At least Obama faked trying to do something about it. A Romney Presidency would have not only done nothing to stop these problems or regulate and stabilize the financial sector, but he’d have undone what tiny little regulations Obama did create. So really, we were fucked either way, with either candidate; now we just now how we’re gonna’ get fucked.

The consequences of an Obama fucking, however, are far more damning. I’ve frequently drawn connections between this election and the one in 2004, but with the shoe on the other foot. Democrats are stuck with an incumbent they’re really not too keen on, while Republicans ended up with the vacillating, plastic-looking, flip-flop machine from Massachusetts. Because of this, it’s likely that come 2016 we’re going to see a repeat of 2008, but once again with the parties switched. Unless Obama really cleans up his act, which so far we’ve heard no promises of, it’s going to be a landslide election in 2016 for whoever the Republican candidate is. Even worse than that is that Obama has been branded by Republicans and the media as some left-wing liberal with a liberal ideology and liberal policies. In reality, almost nothing could be further from the truth. Obama identifies as a conservative, and is, at best, center-right on the traditional American political spectrum when talking about economic policy. Obama has great disdain for progressives and progressive ideology, accuses them of being overly critical and ungrateful for what little progressive policies and pocket change he’s given them, and surrounds himself with members of the establishment that are even further right-wing and think liberals are fucking retarded. Does this sound like a “progressive” politician to you? If you really looked at Obama’s core ideology, combined with the end results of his actual legislation and policies, it’s clear that he is far from a progressive, and much more deeply entrenched in conservative ideology. When his economic policies ultimately and inevitably fail, though, who do you think is going to get the blame ideological wise?

Of course; progressives. The media will go on and on about how Obama is a progressive, conservatives will distance themselves by running even further right and continuing the same baseless mud-slinging at the President that they always have, and both will agree that it was because of Obama’s PROGRESSIVE principles that everything fell to shit, even though he doesn’t have any progressive principles. Progressives will get blamed. I will get blamed. So when I restate the phrase “we’re pretty darned fucked,” I don’t just mean the American people, but progressives around the country. We have someone in office who is supposed to be officially representing our ideology that just isn’t, but the media doesn’t care. It’s too obsessed with maintaining the facade of false equivalency. Obama is a Democrat, therefore, he must be a progressive. That’s the fundamental assumption of the entire American media, and that’s exactly how they’ll report it when Obama and his plans go to hell in a hand basket.

I know, I know, I need to calm down the apocalyptic, end-of-days talk, but Romney’s finally left the room and it’s just me and Obama again. I’ve never been a fan of his economic policy, but it’s the only one offered that’s even remotely close to sane and mathematically sound. So, as someone who… believes in math, I had no choice but to vote for him, not to mention how disgusted I was at Romney’s stance on social and women’s issues.

Hope does spring eternal, however. The eternal optimist in me just keeps thinking there’s a teeny, tiny, microscopic chance that Obama will be better in his second term. Just typing that and I hear laughter in the back of my head, but nonetheless hope remains. If Obama doesn’t want to crash and burn, and sink his entire party’s future in 2014 and 2016, then there are a lot of things he must do and, more importantly, that he must realize. First and foremost, Mr. President, the Republicans are going to obstruct everything you do, now and forever. Why? Because they’re the FUCKING OPPOSITION; it’s literally THEIR JOB as they’ve stated it to oppose you. Yes, they’re going to block absolutely everything you do, from legislation to appointments… so? MAN THE HELL UP and DEAL WITH IT. Bush did it, and he was hardly the sharpest tool in the shed; I’m sure you can figure it out too. Bush got almost everything passed that he wanted despite not having a super majority, the right polling on his side, or in some cases not even controlling a branch of Congress. You’ve got more than the necessary tools at your disposal to get it done without surrendering to or excessively compromising with Republicans. The only reason you would is because you want to compromise with them, or your own advisors that you appointed pressured you to do so and you’re just a weak, weak, pitiful man. Both of which would be failures on your part, Mr. President, not the Republicans or your advisors.

Which leads me to my next point; you’re not just the leader of the American people, you’re the leader of the Democratic Party. There’s time for sticks and there’s time for carrots, and now it’s definitely time for sticks. Get one out and beat your party in line (figuratively speaking, of course). Remember when you first came into office? You had crushing majorities in both the House and Senate and controlled the White House, and yet you still got bullied by corrupt, sellout politicians; primarily those within your own party! Mark Twain had no idea how right he was when he said “I do not belong to any organized political party. That is why I’m a registered Democrat.” The next time a party member decides to sell out to Republicans or special interest and vote against key Democratic legislation, you need to tell them that they do so at the risk of their seat. Tell them if they vote against it to not expect any help from the Democratic Party in their next election, financial or otherwise, or even threaten to kick them out of the party if they’ve been an annoying prick for too long. What are they going to do; become a Republican? They’re so radical that if you support gay rights, rape exceptions for abortion, or taxes just as a concept you’re not welcome. If the Republican Party got smart they’d be willing to take in these refuges, but that would involve actually diversifying their party slightly by tolerating new ideas. Besides, if someone in your own party is going to be persistent enough to vote against you every single time, they may as well be Republicans anyway!

I’m wishing, I’m waiting, I’m hoping against hope that Obama will change in his second term. It’s our only hope. It’s progressives’ only hope. Its Democrats’ only hope. It’s America’s only hope.

“Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne, yet that scaffold sways the future.” – James Russell Lowell