12/29/2011 09:34:44 AM EST

Vote Against Obama in Iowa

posted by Cenk

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is a crime against our constitution. It allows for the indefinite detention of US citizens by the military inside the US - without a trial. It's one of the worst laws ever passed in the US and it passed with nary a peep of opposition. I'm positive that a huge percentage of the population is not even aware of it, partly because the establishment media didn't even bother covering it.

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
But it appeared for a while that the one guy fighting against it was President Obama. I was incredibly encouraged by that. I shouldn't have been. It turned out at the end that he was threatening to veto the bill because he wanted it to have even more executive power, not less. This president has been a disaster for civil liberties. Every time I think about the fact that he used to be a constitutional law professor, I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. Indefinite detentions, summary executions of US citizens abroad without a trial, warrantless wiretapping and much, much more. All of the things we were outraged Bush did - and then some. Honestly, it makes me feel a little sick that I voted for him. At least, I could say that I fought tooth and nail against Bush.

And civil liberties abuses are the tip of the iceberg in disappointment with this president. Then there is the comedy of financial reform which doesn't reform a damn thing. There are the zero prosecutions of the top bankers who destroyed our economy through their fraud, took our money and now spit in our face with it. There is the extension of the Bush tax cuts. There is the cave in on nearly every negotiation (the payroll tax cut being the exception that proves the rule (by the way, he "won" on more tax cuts, a profoundly Republican idea)). His crowning achievement of healthcare reform was a proposal originally written by the Heritage Foundation. There isn't a Republican idea that President Obama didn't want to cuddle with and adopt as his own.

Now, the argument goes that he might be bad, but the Republicans are worse. Of course. Right now, Newt Gingrich is on the campaign trail arguing that Mitt Romney isn't kind enough to the rich. I'm not kidding. He is trying to make hay out of the fact that Romney takes capital taxes down to zero percent for only people making below $200,000. Newt thinks that's discrimination against the rich and he would take it down to zero for everybody. Then he would make your kids clean the rich kids' toilets in school.

I follow politics for a living; I'm not unaware of how hideous the Republican choices are. But that doesn't mean that we should pretend that President Obama has been brilliant because we're scared of the big, bad Republicans. That would be fundamentally dishonest.

And to be honest, I'm really disappointed that he does not have a primary opponent. This country is dying for someone who is going to take on the establishment. Who is that going to be on our side - Barack Obama? On that, I know whether to laugh or cry. Every time I think about the idea that President Obama might be against the establishment, I laugh and laugh and laugh. There is never been a guy who was this enamored with the establishment. If he had wrestling nickname it would be The Establishment.

The guy who appointed Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers, Rahm Emanuel and Bill Daley (and a list of hundreds of others, including two new Fed appointments, one of which is a Republican who worked for the Carlyle Group) is not a guy who is interested in changing the system at all. Change was a cutesy slogan he used to trick us into thinking he was on our side.

I would have loved a progressive alternative, but apparently we are not going to get one (except for Rocky Anderson running on the Justice Party ticket). Primaries are the perfect place to send a message without taking away votes in the general election. But it didn't happen because the Democratic establishment says we must fall in line because we wouldn't want to hurt the agenda of the president. The agenda of the president sucks and is deeply Republican. I'd love to at least get him to reconsider that agenda for a second.

But there is one thing we can do right now that doesn't really hurt the chances of the president getting re-elected and doesn't help Republicans one bit. It is an idea that Occupy Iowa came up with. In the Iowa caucuses you can vote for "uncommitted." In fact, since the 1970's "uncommitted" has won twice on the Democratic side and it beat Bob Dole in 1980. Of course, the Republican Party has shut down this option on their side. They say you can vote that way in the GOP field but they will not register those votes or send those delegates. Of course, they're the GOP; they have no interest in your dissent.

But if all of those people were to go and participate on the Democratic side they might have an effect. If "uncommitted" beat President Obama on the Democratic side in Iowa that would make some news. That might even get the attention of The Establishment. So far, he has only responded to right-wing pressure. He is the consummate politician, so if there was actually a little bit of pressure on his left he might have to respond to it, especially during an election season. Wouldn't it be amazing if President Obama acted like a progressive on some issue because he was worried about the voters?

By the way, this strategy also has the benefit of being accurate. I am "uncommitted" toward Obama. I'm uncommitted from supporting a guy that has walked all over our civil liberties, that thinks tax cuts are the only answer, that gave all of the money to the bankers and asked for nothing in return, that thinks the right-wing establishment has all of the answers. Uncommitted is the kindest word I have.

If you live in Iowa, please send a message to the President for the rest of us. We voted for change last time, apparently you didn't hear us. If you don't hear us soon, you might be the one that gets changed.

The Young Turks on Current

< Steve "The Audio Guy" Oh's Dissenting Opinion | Bachmann comes out against Free Market >
 Display:
Vote Against Obama in Iowa | 3 comments (3 topical, 0 hidden)
Uncommitted, but insane none the less. (none / 0)
I'm not sure who "uncommitted" delegates are to vote for during the convention. It isn't as if there will be an alternative to the incumbent. He isn't LBJ (perhaps worse because he is unopposed). Perhaps something will change to make it reasonable. I pray that it happens. But I cannot count on it. Yet if you must vote on the democratic side I think this is the least evil alternative. The Mayor of NY, Ed Koch in 1980 said hold your nose and vote for Carter because Reagan would be worse. Perhaps progressives ought to hold their nose and vote for Ron Paul who is against the corruption and the destruction of civil liberties. In 2016 we can then have a national discussion on what government ought to do - with the banksters in jail or homeless. And with GITMO closed. And with the military here protecting our borders, not off on the other side of the world burning cash which was supposed to pay for social security and medicare. Some might not be able to do so. I understand. I do wish there were other alternatives. Other than Ron Paul on the GOP side I have no one to support. Unlike smart Alec Baldwin, I would look at New Zealand's immigration policies. Eventually the choice is not gray or fuzzy but is clear. What is important. Are civil liberties important? Is ending corruption important? Or is getting a government payment via a debit card from Chase or BoA important? You may detest Paul on a lot of minutiae. But if it is Obama v. Romney will you call that a choice? On the things that matter most, who is the best? Which vision, which country, one where the military can arrest and indefinitely detain people, "no lawyer for you"? And wouldn't a loyal, patriotic opposition to Paul be better than - I have no words to describe the tacit acceptance - Obama? Worse, do you really want to live under Romney or Gingrich when Obama completes his seizure of executive power and we are under a dictatorship (isn't that a synonym for "speaker"?) run by the GOP? You may be able to cast a protest vote this year, but will you be able to protest at all next year?

by tz on 12/29/2011 05:41:21 PM EST

military-industrial complex (none / 0)
Obama didn't create it. Is he "fighting" against it? Obviously not. The target is on his back, after all! (remember Kennedy?) The answer is for US to push back HARD, from the streets, when he gets weak in the knees (as he's prone do!). But this election is vital. A very real turning-point for our country. If we put another right-wing ideologue in the White House we lose any chance to restore the Supreme Court to some measure of sanity. And restoring the Court is the ONLY hope we have to restore the "civil liberties" that have been systematically set aside, little-by-little, over the last half-century. We MUST re-elect Obama, return a progressive Congress, and STAY IN THE STREETS after we elect them, to force them to do OUR will. If we slack off they will continue to do the will of their corporate masters. Ron Paul is not any kind of answer, just a new set corporate-directed problems. He is therefore irrelevant to anyone seeking a real solution.

by CCCIII on 12/29/2011 11:25:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
How are we going to... (none / 0)
...force them to do our will?  There appear to be about 5 different ways of sending messages to power.  Which of these would work if we re-elect Obama?

  1.  Money.  You talk with your campaign contributions and your purchasing habits.  Obama is going to raise at least 600 million dollars from his friends, the exact corporate masters whose will you want to fight against.  Do you have 600 million dollars to wave in Obama's face and get him to do our will instead?  If you pooled the money of everyone who reads this forum and everyone of those peoples' friends, do we have 600 million dollars to pour into a campaign?
  2.  Polls.  You show that public opinion is against the leadership and they panic and listen to your agenda.  But the polls are already overwhelmingly Liberal on most issues--every single issue other than abortion and immigration polls far above 50% for the Left or Center-Left option.  Taxing the rich, protecting Entitlements, worker rights, public option, ending Afgahnistan.  The Conservative solutions to these issues poll at 23%, but Obama again and again listens to them and compromises with them.  He doesn't give a damn what the polls say.
  3.  Elections.  But the message is NEVER sent.  Democrats had Congress in 2009-10 and Obama was given a clear electoral mandate to change the system and he STILL governed like an Establishment Republican.  One too-small stimulus package that contained 42% tax cuts, and then he was off to the races trying to capitulate Rightward as fast as possible on every other issue.  In 2010, Progressives sent a clear message of discontent by staying home.  Obama's reaction was that he wasn't far enough to the Right and his base obviously must favor bi-partisan compromise over Liberal principles.  In 2011, the Congress has an 11% approval rating.  Republicans are epically unpopular.  Obama's conclusion is to adopt economic and defense positions that are in most cases consistent with Conservative ideology and in a few cases are even more radical than Bush's proposals.  What will the message be if he is re-elected?  "Hahaha.  I see that I can go as far to the Right as I want and still get your vote, so I'll continue to take you for granted.  Just stop whining, you pathetic Liberal losers--I got you a middle class tax cut, didn't I?"  What will be the message to all future Democrats that want to be president?  "Don't listen to the Left.  They have nowhere to go.  Always pander to the Center-Right."
  4.  Protests.  But there are protests in the streets now.  How much has the policy changed in Washington?  We now get some lip-service rhetoric about the 99% and the 1%, but the next time the Republicans threaten to shut the government down, guess who the bulk of the tax cuts are going to go to, and whose benefits will get cut.  Which party shut down most of the city occupy protests?  An independent mayor of New York City and a bunch of Democratic mayors around the country.  Not the evil Republicans that "force" Obama to do all of these terrible things against the people.  Democrats.  

I can really only think of one other possible way to send a message, and it is not terribly pretty.  The reality is that we have no leverage at all to force the corrupt oligarchy in Washington to do our will.  Our speech is stifled, our votes are just about meaningless, our money is never competitive with corporate money.  If you want to be relevant to seeking a solution, Obama is not the answer.  He isn't just "not fighting against the MIC," he is on the other side of this fight, fighting against you.  The only hope is to educate enough people about what is really happening in the country, who is to blame and why we need a complete overhaul of our political system and a complete cleansing of moneyed interests, bribes and the revolving door.  A vote for Obama is a vote not only for continued heinous corruption and terrible policy, but a vote for conventional wisdom to blame this terrible policy on "Liberalism" for the next 25 years.  I'd rather at least a Republican took the blame for what will definitely be 4 upcoming years of Republican poison.  

by Milltycoon on 12/30/2011 07:39:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Vote Against Obama in Iowa | 3 comments (3 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: