If McCain and Palin were running the White House today ...

103 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Last post

Fri, 2009-07-31 17:35

Unionist

If McCain and Palin were running the White House today ...

I can't take credit for this thread idea, but I think it might be valuable. So let me kick it off:

[b][i]If McCain and Palin were running the White House today...[/i][/b]

1. Guantanamo might still be open.

2. U.S. troops might still be in Iraq.

3. U.S. troops might still be in Afghanistan.

4. There might still be no single-payer public health care, certainly no bill before Congress even proposing it.

5. Racism and racial profiling would still be a daily way of life in the U.S., with the government at best making jokes and excuses about it.

6. The U.S. would still be slavishly kissing the backside of Israel, which would probably even have a Likud government by now.

7. The U.S. would have addressed the economic crisis by handing out hundreds of billions of dollars to the banks and corporations, while ordinary folks still lose their jobs and homes and try to make ends meet.

8. Same-sex marriage and queers openly joining the armed forces would still be a thing of the future.

9. The death penalty would still be on the books.

10. There would still be no public funding of abortion.

11. Cabinet secretaries would still be pointing to Canada as a source of terrorism and advocating that all Americans be vigilant and denounce each other at the slightest sign of unAmerikan activity.

Ok, your turn.

Fri, 2009-07-31 17:47

NorthReport

What do you think organized labour in the USA would say?

Fri, 2009-07-31 17:51

Unionist

Ah, good question. They would say:

Quote:
God damn McCain and Palin! Now that they're in power, the Employee Free Choice Act is dead in the water! At best, we might salvage something which is mere caricature of what we fought for! It looks as if we won't even get the card check provision! Now Obama, if only he were here, we'd be home free - he promised, after all!!!

Fri, 2009-07-31 18:29

remind

1. Iran might have been bombed already

2. We would be sick of "you betcha"

3. Abortions would be illegal, or well on their way to be

4. Sontomayer(sp) would not be a SC Justice

5. No sex education allowed

6. No environmental action at all occuring

7. Palin might be President already

8. Race riots might be a daily occurance

9. The religious right leaders would not be being investigated for fraud etc, the way they are now

10. The police would be more out of control than they are now

Fri, 2009-07-31 19:19

Unionist

Other than Sotomayor (which is hard to care about, given her own backtracking), isn't it amazing that very few of these occurred during 8 years of GW Bush. I guess you're thanking your lucky stars for Obama!

Oh by the way, did you notice that more Afghan civilians and more invading troops are dying in Afghanistan than ever before? But I guess with McCain, they would have been dying in China and North Korea, right?

Fri, 2009-07-31 19:24

remind

Did you start this thread as bait so you could attack people unionist? If so I asked that it be closed.

Fri, 2009-07-31 19:30

al-Qa'bong

Other than Obama, who has Unionist attacked?

Fri, 2009-07-31 19:35

Jingles

Quote:
3. Abortions would be illegal, or well on their way to be

Republicans will never, ever make abortion illegal. Why would they kill their golden goose?

Fri, 2009-07-31 19:37

Unionist

I thought I was attacking Obama. Every point I posted was true. Maybe remind is upset because all her points were "might have beens". You know, like "if Harper is elected, the world will come to an end, so vote Liberal?"

You see, if the left doesn't push and shove and criticize Obama every single time he licks the boots of Power and Wealth, why would anyone want him there? His charming good looks?

Fri, 2009-07-31 19:45

#10

al-Qa'bong

Jingles wrote:

Quote:
3. Abortions would be illegal, or well on their way to be

Republicans will never, ever make abortion illegal. Why would they kill their golden goose?

Good point.

You must have read "What's the Matter With Kansas?"

Fri, 2009-07-31 20:18

#11

Unionist

[url=http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/top-ten-ways-tell-your-presi... Ten Ways To Tell Your President & His Party Aren't Fighting For Health Care For Everybody[/color][/url]

Quote:

Before he became a presidential candidate, Barack Obama identified himself as a proponent of a single payer health care system. All we had to do, he told us, was elect a Democratic congress and senate, and a different president. Now that this has been done, he insists that “change” is just not possible, and we have to settle for less. The president continues to admit that only a single payer health care system will cover everybody, but insists that America just can't handle that much change.

The truth is that Barack Obama campaigned as the candidate of change, and a health care system that covers everybody from day one with no exceptions is what people imagined they voted for when they swept him and an overwhelming number of Democrats into office.

A single payer Medicare-For-All system will eliminate 500,000 insurance company jobs and replace them with 3.2 million new jobs in health care for a net gain of 2.6 million new jobs according to a study by the National Nurses Organization. That's as many jobs as the US economy lost in all of 2007. Single payer will create hundreds of billions in annual wages and local and state tax revenues for cash strapped cities and towns. It will lift the shadow of bankruptcy for medical reasons from two thirds of a million American families yearly. It's what we deserve.

It's what we voted for, and we won't stop demanding it.

From Black Agenda Report. The least we can do is support those in the U.S. who are pushing Obama to live up to the dreams of those who voted for him. To date, he is scoring zero.

Fri, 2009-07-31 20:29

#12

NorthReport

Well had I had a vote I would have supported Ralph Nadar, but you know that the same BS was spewed out from the Democrats about splitting the vote, that the Liberals vomit out in Canada. So we continually exchange one right-wing party for another. Mouseland is not only applicable in Canada.

Having said that, there is something about taking away people's hopes and dreams, even if they are probably not entirely accurate

I think there is at least one fundamental difference, but I'm not even positive about it. At least I hope there is.

When someone like a George Bush or a Brian Mulroney gets elected, there is a tendency for the real right-wing wackos to come out of the woodwork. It's as if they have been legitimized, and feel they can make all the divisive comments they like without much fear of any retribution from the authorities. You know, the free speechers. Unfortunately as Mulroney well knew, you throw enough mud on the wall, and at least some of it will stick.

What about Supreme Court appointments? My gut tells me I would rather the recommendations came from Obama rather than McCain, but hey, what do I know even about that.

Fri, 2009-07-31 21:42

#13

500_Apples

I believe if McCain was president today, the left in the USA would be a lot more vibrant. Their opposition to the policies of the McCain-Palin (current Obama) administration would give them something around which to rally around. Right now they have put all their eggs in one basket, those eggs were full of hormones and are now already spoiled.

Instead, the right in the USA is finding unity, around issues like racism being over except when it's against whites, the birther movement, and the feminism of Sarah Palin.

Fri, 2009-07-31 23:11

#14

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Good one, Apples.

[url=http://odeo.com/episodes/24450982-Anti-War-Movement-Defeated-by-Obama]An... Movement Defeated by Obama[/url]

And note this is the exact opposite of what all the Obombaphiles were telling us before the election - that an Obomba administration would usher in a golden age of leftist activism and leave the Republicans in demoralized disarray.

Fri, 2009-07-31 23:22

#15

Jingles

I remember when some were arguing that an Obama White House would "allow the space" for anti-war and progressive movements to flourish. We said that was horseshit.

We were right.

Fri, 2009-07-31 23:35

#16

George Victor

But don't ever, ever, criticize those who oppose him in Congress, or their robotized electorate, conditioned by a media owned by wealth, and with no intellectual means of breaking free and evaluating their own condition.

What a wonderfully uncomplicated world of personalities some dwell in. Perhaps the effect of early exposure to Hollywood.

Fri, 2009-07-31 23:43

#17

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

George Victor wrote:

But don't ever, ever, criticize those who oppose him in Congress, or their robotized electorate, conditioned by a media owned by wealth, and with no intellectual means of breaking free and evaluating their own condition.

I'd be the first to do so, if I thought that some babblers were supporting those congresspersons. As it stands, however, the debate on babble seems to be centred somewhat to the left of that.

Do try to keep up, George.

Fri, 2009-07-31 23:48

#18

Unionist

George Victor wrote:

But don't ever, ever, criticize those who oppose him in Congress, or their robotized electorate, conditioned by a media owned by wealth, and with no intellectual means of breaking free and evaluating their own condition.

Yeah sure. The "robots" produced an African-American Democrat president and a Democratic Congress, all based on promises of change, end to foreign war, end to violation of Geneva Conventions, racial harmony, health care for all, freedom for workers to organize... and the robots achieved this notwithstanding the media owned by wealth. They were inspired by a clamour for hope and change.

And now, today, we should allegedly criticize the McCains and Palins; the rightwingers; those who lost the election; those who could no longer fool the Great Unwashed; but we must not raise the smallest voice of reminder and criticism against those who broke those promises, who are trampling cynically on the hope for change upon which they themselves traded.

The robotic voters are far wiser and far more courageous than that. They will not fear to remind Obama sharply of what he promised, for fear of falling into McCainian hellfire. They understand blackmail and will defy it. But they do need a few principled and active leaders to show them the way.

Sat, 2009-08-01 00:01

#19

George Victor

The robots, of course, are on the Religious Right, u.

The Reformers - like babblers - are not robotic...but given, sometimes, to criticizing their elected politicians for not working a Harry Potter magic. Why ever would Obama have to eat his words about a "dumb" cop if he lived in the political world you portray?

Sat, 2009-08-01 00:47

#20

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

George Victor wrote:
Why ever would Obama have to eat his words about a "dumb" cop if he lived in the political world you portray?

So, the more he grovels before the robots of the religious (and secular) right, the more it proves he is [b]obliged[/b] to do so?

Bootstrap logic.

Sat, 2009-08-01 06:56

#21

George Victor

The media, MS, can't wait to find fault with him as they "grovel" before their conservative advertisers (there are people grovelling all over, trying to make a buck).

That's another element that the down-with-the-appeaser crowd somehow ignores. Or can you not imagine the Appalachian folk that Bageant describes, listening, enthralled, to the nightly rants of their radio talk show hosts?

You people want him to stop playing politics and go down gloriously in flames, satisfying the Republicans that the dingbat from Alaska has a chance three years down the road and bolstering their chances in the midterms less than two years away.

Lunar logic on your part. Certainly, nothing to do with politics on Earth.

Sat, 2009-08-01 07:24

#22

josh

It's still early yet. I never had any illusions about Obama, but before we start making facile comparisons, how about waiting until he's a year into his term?

In any event, here are some other items that wouldn't, or would have, taken place had Obama lost:

More tax cuts for the wealthy.

No stimulus bill, or a paltry one (even though the one that was passed didn't go far enough).

No challenge of Israeli settlement policy.

A military action against Iran.

Sarah Palin being taken seriously.

Sat, 2009-08-01 07:47

#23

Tommy_Paine

Good lord, I am agreeing with George.

How many slaves did Abraham Lincoln emancipate with the Emancipation Proclamation? Not a whole lot, really. A few in the new state of West Virginia, maybe a few in Kentucky and Missourah. The vast, vast, vast majority of slaves at that time remained slaves.

Yet, "Lincoln freed the Slaves."

When St. Tommy of Douglass brought in socialized health care, was it "Bill 1" of the first Saskachewan NDP government? And, when it was brought in, how many abortions did it cover?

And if Obama really didn't want a health care program, he's had the perfect excuse to "back burner" it, what with the economy and all. I'm sure Bob Rae's already written to his people with tips on how to slide that knife into peoples backs so they hardly even notice it going in.

And, really, how fast do you think YOU could actually withdraw troops from Iraq, or close down Gitmo? Faster than Obama? Maybe. by what, weeks? Days?

We're at month 7.

He's Barrak Obama, not Morgan Freeman.

Wait, Joe Bidden has been gaffe free for consequtive weeks. Maybe he is Morgan Freeman.

Sat, 2009-08-01 09:54

#24

Slumberjack

Apparently, he's similar to a magician, or a spell caster, and an astonishing one at that, whose beguiling incantations reach far and wide.

Sat, 2009-08-01 10:01

#25

remind

11. Women forced to pay for their own rape examination kit

Sat, 2009-08-01 10:10

#26

George Victor

Well he beats Bush's bumbling by a country mile, eh jack? Maybe that's part of the problem, too great a contrast. There must still be something rotten in Denmark?

And of course there is. But the man and his estimable lady ring true as good people trying to do the best they can, set an example . They are now confronting "the beast" - the sobriquet applied to the voting populace by some European politicians (where political consciousness is far, far more highly developed than in the land of the free).

Sat, 2009-08-01 10:18

#27

josh

To me, the "beast" is less the voting populace, than the corporate/financial/media empire that owns much of congress, and that is able to brainwash a good part of the voting populace with myths, lies and outright propaganda. A strong progressive president can get the best of them, a la FDR. Obama has shown no such inclination.

Sat, 2009-08-01 10:23

#28

George Victor

What in the devil do you mean by "get the best of them?"

Just what power does a Democratic president have over the MSM?

Sat, 2009-08-01 10:25

#29

Slumberjack

George Victor wrote:
They are now confronting "the beast" - the sobriquet applied to the voting populace by some European politicians (where political consciousness is far, far more highly developed than in the land of the free).

He's not confronting beasts George. They're his advisors, and czars...handlers actually.

Sat, 2009-08-01 10:26

#30

josh

He/she can go over their heads and communicate directly to the people. Obama has yet to make an oval office address, which is the typical method of doing so. All the interviews and press conferences in the world won't accomplish that. The bigger problem in terms of communication is substantive, however. For instance, on health care, Obama could have taken on the health insurance industry directly, and made them the bogeyman. But he hasn't. Which has allowed the Republicans, as usual, to make "the government" the bogeyman.

Sat, 2009-08-01 10:30

#31

George Victor

Wouldn't you think old Rush Limbaugh and following fit a bit better, jack? And the Europeans are talking about the great,heaving mass of people and viewpoints involved in who knows what weird, delusional mind exercises mixed with good old self gratification, not the scientific, poll based, rational process in the West Wing.

Sat, 2009-08-01 10:35

#32

George Victor

When most see the U.S. public's vulnerability to snake oil, josh, they wonder why anyone of intelligence would try to influence such ignorance. It is a learned condition, the product of omission of facts as well as commission of outright lies. That was the finding of the Davey Commission on the media in Canada, four decades back. It's only gotten worse, here and there.

Sat, 2009-08-01 10:47

#33

josh

I don't subscribe to such pessimism. Particularly when a president can dominate the news, and can use the "bully pulpit" to change perceptions and views. That it hasn't been tried does not mean it cannot work.

Sat, 2009-08-01 10:54

#34

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

George Victor wrote:

What in the devil do you mean by "get the best of them?"

Just what power does a Democratic president have over the MSM?

If he's got a spine, he has the power to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

Sat, 2009-08-01 11:06

#35

George Victor

Yep, looks like that would be an excellent start, LTJ. He certainly would not veto it as did Reagan and Bush. Perhaps he can put one more thing on his plate of proposed legislation, but I would think presenting it before the health battle is over would be counterproductive.

Again, to be fair, his "spine" tests might be conducted over a couple of years in his first term?

Sat, 2009-08-01 12:02

#36

Jingles

Quote:
In any event, here are some other items that wouldn't, or would have, taken place had Obama lost:

More tax cuts for the wealthy.

No stimulus bill, or a paltry one (even though the one that was passed didn't go far enough).

No challenge of Israeli settlement policy.

A military action against Iran.

Sarah Palin being taken seriously.

Quote:
We're at month 7.

When November 2012 rolls around, we'll be hearing about how Obomber needs another term to force his agenda of hope and change because one term just isn't enough time. Besides, he can't get anything done with an obstructionist Congress (of fellow Democrats), and that besides, [i]can you just imagine how much worse it will be with a (Jeb)Bush/Palin administration!!"[/i].

For all those lamenting that Obama [i]has no real power to challenge the entrenched special interests[/i] (like his team of advisors. Go figure), he can order the deployment of the Marines to Afghanistan, but by god he can't get mustard for his hamburger. He can make preparations for and openly threaten to attack Iran (one of the evil thing McCain/Palin would do if they, god forbid, ever get elected), but for chrissakes just cannot even [i]speak[/i] the words "single payer, universal".

All this McCain/Palin crap is nonsense. And if Gore had assumed the presidency, there would be community gardens where interstates used to be, and flying electric cars to get everyone around, and we would piss Tanqueray. Maybes and couldas, are meaningless conjecture. What is disturbing is that we are hearing the "but McCain/Palin would have been worse!" as a [i]defense[/i] of the utter betrayal by Obama and the corporate Democrats by people who still abide in the fantasy world of "hope and change". When your only response to the utterly craven corporate rapaciousness of the Obama regime is that it is the best alternative you can possibly have, you are in deep, deep trouble.

Sat, 2009-08-01 12:39

#37

Tommy_Paine

"A strong progressive president can get the best of them, a la FDR. "

And did FDR do all he wanted to do? Did he do all his supporters wanted him to do?

But, Obama has had seven months to match Roosevelt's record in office-- which he held for 12 years.

Fair enough, I suppose?

Sat, 2009-08-01 12:46

#38

George Victor

Yep, lots of depth to it, J.

Trouble is, them that has, don't want to let go of the good life, and them that hasn't , wants it. Beyond that, there is not much thinking going on.

Old Jimmy Carter said back in '79 that preparing to beat the energy shortage perhaps required a mobilization as for war. That will come to pass, ending the little squabbles. We'll see if Jefferson's jottings about freedoms, hold up in that climate.

Sat, 2009-08-01 13:02

#39

500_Apples

I think the 7 months excuse would be a valid excuse if Obama had had a solid start. For example, if our of the 20 or 30 good things that Obama could conceivably, he had managed to implement 1 or 2 of them. That is not the case. One thing I notice when I talk to progressive friends is it seems like they want to like Obama, they really wish there was a reason for them to support Obama, and whenever the smallest opportunity comes up for Obama to do something progressive, they get excited, and then they feel let down.

Leaving aside the strawman question of what he could do in the next 8 years, let's look at what we know for sure from the first 7 months. This man is in love with compromise. That's simply not the optimal method to bring in real change. Compare to Bush for example, a real hero to neoconservatives, he implemented their full philosophy. He didn't start from a position of compromise the way Obama does, he believed in his own philosophy and he pushed for it 100%. Bush got 2.3 trillion dollars in tax cuts in his first year or so; 8 years of high inflation later and during a necessitating crisis, Obama gets a 700 billion dollar spending package which goes disproportionately to banks. There's an explicit quantitative contrast.

It is not "impossible" that Obama could turn things around, implement universal health care, have an effective environmental policy, qualtiatively reduce America's imperial network overseas, et cetera. However, what is a lot more possible from the objective method of simply extrapolating current trends, is that virtually nothing will change other than a few labels. Things could diverge from these trends - but they could diverge in either direction.

Sat, 2009-08-01 13:15

#40

Slumberjack

When everything seems hopeless, and there's little to feel excited or enthusiastic about in the political realm, the prospect of deliverance is perhaps not completely lost after all, when considering that in time, there will always be better drugs on the market. Until then, no amount of placebo optimism can suffice to ameliorate the reality. One has to wonder though where the greater need for reality medication exists, among the sunny idealists, or with the disbelievers.

Sat, 2009-08-01 15:27

#41

George Victor

Out there in Unread Land, tax cuts always win , with whacko economics onside. Them's the berries,

Apples.

Sat, 2009-08-01 16:39

#42

Jingles

Quote:
This man is in love with compromise.

What compromise? He has yet to propose anything remotely progressive, and the few things that would help working people, like the card check or universal single payer health care are either gutted entirely or banished from existence.

Sure, he "compromised" on Guantanamo bay: the Republicans want to keep raping and torturing, and the Democrats want to rape and torture somewhere less accessable to prying eyes. So, while "closing" Guantanamo (sometime, maybe, in the future, unless something comes up), they will continue thier gross violations of international law and human rights. His compromises consist of taking the more grotesque and vile policies of the Bush administration and compromising to entrench and worsen them. GOBAMA!

Sat, 2009-08-01 17:11

#43

josh

Tommy_Paine wrote:

"A strong progressive president can get the best of them, a la FDR. "

And did FDR do all he wanted to do? Did he do all his supporters wanted him to do?

But, Obama has had seven months to match Roosevelt's record in office-- which he held for 12 years.

Fair enough, I suppose?

FDR got a lot done in his first hundred days. However, he did have bigger majorities and an even more desparate economic situation. My point was that FDR was able to disarm his opponents by taking them head on, and making them the "bad guys." Obama has shown more of a taste for consensous, not confrontation. Your accomplishments will be limited if you take that route because the other side plays to win and takes no prisoners.

Sat, 2009-08-01 18:17

#44

Tommy_Paine

I think if you were an American WWI veteran, part of the so called "Bonus Army" your view of FDR wouldn't be much different from your view of Obama today.

There's a story I heard, probably appocraphyl, of FDR listening to some social welfare lobbyists, and concluding the meeting by telling them "I agree with you, now go out there and force me to do it." True story or not, it's instructive.

While I have not followed the health care initiative in detail, from what I have seen it seems that it's only Obama out there trying to sell it.

Who is abandoning who, here?

Sat, 2009-08-01 18:43

#45

George Victor

FDR had support from those who knew that he was saving capitalism itself. M'lord Black's bio on FDR (a very detailed if one-sided work of appreciation) was written for exactly that reason.

Any guesses on how many "citizens" (self-identified as taxpayers and consumers) in the land of the free, know FDRs objective role, let alone the restraints on Obama?

Sat, 2009-08-01 19:16

#46

Tommy_Paine

About as many as know Abraham Lincoln's real opinion on African Americans.

Sat, 2009-08-01 19:42

#47

George Victor

We have to allow for historical context, TP. And after all, he was Republican

Sat, 2009-08-01 20:19

#48

500_Apples

George Victor wrote:
Any guesses on how many "citizens" (self-identified as taxpayers and consumers) in the land of the free, know FDRs objective role,

That his objective role was to "save capitalism from itself" is one possible arbitrary oversimplification one could make.

What does "objective role" mean?

Sat, 2009-08-01 20:19

#49

josh

"While I have not followed the health care initiative in detail, from what I have seen it seems that it's only Obama out there trying to sell it.

Who is abandoning who, here?"

There is no "Obama plan." He's set forth a number of goals he would like a health care bill to contain, including a public option, but has left the details to congress. That's the problem. When he should be setting benchmarks, or "lines in the sand" if you will, he instead has been satisfied with nudging congress and meeting with congresspersons in the hopes of keeping the ball moving forward.

Sat, 2009-08-01 20:24

#50

500_Apples

Jingles wrote:
What compromise? He has yet to propose anything remotely progressive,

My interpretation is that he starts with a compromise.

Sat, 2009-08-01 20:37

#51

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Bill Maher wrote:
I never thought I'd say this, but actually, what [Obama] needs in his personality is a little George Bush. He needs to stop worrying about being loved and bring out that smug, insufferable swagger that says, "Suck on it, America."

George Bush had horrible ideas-torture, deregulation, preemptive war, tax cuts for the rich-but he pushed them through in their full measure, never mind the Congress or the Constitution, the Geneva Convention - Magna Carta-Hammurabi's Code. The point is, he didn't care if it made him unpopular with every human on the planet not named Cletus or Fred Barnes. Which it did.

And what we need to do is to marry the good ideas that Barack Obama has, with a little bit of the Bush attitude and certitude. I'd love it if Obama came out one day and said, "Jesus told me to fix health care."

In conclusion, Bush was bad, but he never cared if he was seen out in a restaurant having a burger with Dick Cheney. If he wanted a burger, he picked up the phone in the White House and said, "I'm the president, bring me a burger!" And they would say, "Sir, this is NORAD." "Would you please stop ordering burgers into the red phone?"

I'm glad Obama is president, but the "audacity of hope" part is over. Right now, I'm hoping for a little more audacity.

Pages

Topic locked