This is to try to have a discussion of the issues affecting who should be elected.
My current position is that I think our choices are 'not good' and 'disaster'. We could use a progressive candidate; there's going to be a token one probably, but that's not enough.
This is about who should win, and that basically means Obama or any of the Republicans running - practically IMO it's probably Romney or Perry.
I'll pick five issues I think are important and how each affects the pick:
1. US Democracy owned by the corporatocracy. Can't think of a more important issue.
On it, on a scale of 1 to 10, I'm inclined to most of the Republicans 2 and Obama 2.5.
The tea party faction (we really shouldn't call it a 'party', it's a faction of the Republican party de facto however much they protest that, no more a party than the progressive wing of Democrats) is actually mixed to review on this. They basically endorse a terrible pro-wealth ideology and were born from a Wall Street whine about the poor, get funding from the most corrupt right-wing sources and serve their interests (kill the EPA!), but they do have a strain opposed to corporate corruption, an independence.
They are utterly nuts, but that's not the issue here; their votes against TARP, their desire to not raise the debt ceiling, are terrible but not a corporate sellout position.
Obama is a worse collector of Wall Street fund than even the Republican candidates, which would make his score lower than theirs, but as a Democrat trying to appeal occasionally to progressives, he supports some very slim measures and doesn't push as hard as Republicans on some, such as the slightly useful consumer protection agency (Republicans opposed) and Wall Street reform bill (slightly useful, Republicans opposed). That pushes him a little above them.
2. Foreign policy
Obama gives decent speech. If that phrasing sounds awkward, similar to 'gives good head', it's not accidental, comparing how he goes for 'feel good' oral over policy.
Compared to Bush, he has mixed results. He doesn't have a 'rule the world' agenda like Bush put in power by appointing the neocons and letting them do what they like for years, but he does have a lack of leadership or progressive/American values in reforming much Bush did. On giving lip service to international relations he's a lot better, close to historical presidents. On war, he's better, not pursuing a big new agenda - say, war with Iran. On detainee policies, secret prisons and such - he's similar to worse. He says he ended torture; but targeted assassinations, new precedents for killing even American civilians drone strikes, are all up. Hidden secret prisons continue.
Historically speaking, he's perhaps 'a little above average', but largely because of the times - we don't seem to do things like run foreign countries with the old formula of dictator and death squad secret police we supply like we used to so much. The cold war is over, new times.
The competition is just disgustingly ugly - ignorance is the best thing about them, from there it goes downhill to evil and pandering.
And that's just what they say - just as Bush didn't say in the campaign he had a hard-on (sorry for the crude metaphor) for war in Iraq but did, it's likely any of the Republican candidates will have surprises for us, whether they know what they are now or are just 'open to them'. These people are all an embarrassing menace to the world on this issue IMO.
There is a wild-card element to them though; the tea party again, has an isolationist streak in conjunction with its 'ban all mosques' type rhetoric.
I think the US needs someone who will pursue real strengthening of international law; decrease defense spending by half; be strong where needed, support things like anti-nuclear proliferation efforts (and a global ban really as Presidents before Bush endorsed), but we don't have that candidate.
Ron Paul offers isolationism based on ideology that I think has its own flaws.
Obama's not that good foreign policy seems the clear choice among poor choices.
3. The economy
Yes, a disastrous situation since Reagan, worsening under Clinton and the Bush, has led to a terrible situation Obama inherited.
Obama has done little to fix it, and little to make it worse - though it is getting worse.
Again he's supported 'better than Republican' policies though they basically are Republican policies. Extending the Bush tax cuts for the top 2%, a weakened finance reform bill, a lack of prosecution for crime in the economic crisis, nothing about 'too big to fail' with banks bigger after the crash, re-appointing the same staff with bad policies, on and on, we need a progressive leader, he's not it.
Republicans, are again just embarrassing - running on empty pandering phrases about 'stopping the socialist' in effect and straw men they don't hate business like Obama does, with little more than right-wing ideology to offer, along with these radical notions of 'not one cent in closing tax loopholes for the rich that were corrupt to pass', threatening the economy not raising the debt ceiling, on and on.
With Obama we get a Wall Street employee - and sadly that's the least bad pick.
4. Supreme Court appointees
I value this a lot - Citiens v. United alone is an example paving the way to massive destruction of our democracy. These 5-4 decisions for years between four right-wing radicals and Kennedy and the traditional four others, are a great harm to the country, setting precedents indefinitely.
This is probably Obama's strongest issue here. He hasn't appointed any liberal justices as I'd like; he has appointed moderates protecting us from more radicals.
Every Republican seems loyal to the radical model. This is basically enough to make re-electing Obama important by itself.
5. I'll reserve this one, as a fifth one doesn't jump out compared to those four.
IMO, Obama is basically a traditional Republican, running as a Democrat, and the alternative is either corporatist and/or far-right candidates.
It's a sad election for America not to have someone better to pick - IMO a Howard Dean, an Al Gore, a John Kennedy, an FDR type.
But to repeat, I think it's Obama continuing as he has, versus disasters. I think it's important we re-elect Obama.
I plan to support the progressive candidate they're looking for now, in the primary.
My current position is that I think our choices are 'not good' and 'disaster'. We could use a progressive candidate; there's going to be a token one probably, but that's not enough.
This is about who should win, and that basically means Obama or any of the Republicans running - practically IMO it's probably Romney or Perry.
I'll pick five issues I think are important and how each affects the pick:
1. US Democracy owned by the corporatocracy. Can't think of a more important issue.
On it, on a scale of 1 to 10, I'm inclined to most of the Republicans 2 and Obama 2.5.
The tea party faction (we really shouldn't call it a 'party', it's a faction of the Republican party de facto however much they protest that, no more a party than the progressive wing of Democrats) is actually mixed to review on this. They basically endorse a terrible pro-wealth ideology and were born from a Wall Street whine about the poor, get funding from the most corrupt right-wing sources and serve their interests (kill the EPA!), but they do have a strain opposed to corporate corruption, an independence.
They are utterly nuts, but that's not the issue here; their votes against TARP, their desire to not raise the debt ceiling, are terrible but not a corporate sellout position.
Obama is a worse collector of Wall Street fund than even the Republican candidates, which would make his score lower than theirs, but as a Democrat trying to appeal occasionally to progressives, he supports some very slim measures and doesn't push as hard as Republicans on some, such as the slightly useful consumer protection agency (Republicans opposed) and Wall Street reform bill (slightly useful, Republicans opposed). That pushes him a little above them.
2. Foreign policy
Obama gives decent speech. If that phrasing sounds awkward, similar to 'gives good head', it's not accidental, comparing how he goes for 'feel good' oral over policy.
Compared to Bush, he has mixed results. He doesn't have a 'rule the world' agenda like Bush put in power by appointing the neocons and letting them do what they like for years, but he does have a lack of leadership or progressive/American values in reforming much Bush did. On giving lip service to international relations he's a lot better, close to historical presidents. On war, he's better, not pursuing a big new agenda - say, war with Iran. On detainee policies, secret prisons and such - he's similar to worse. He says he ended torture; but targeted assassinations, new precedents for killing even American civilians drone strikes, are all up. Hidden secret prisons continue.
Historically speaking, he's perhaps 'a little above average', but largely because of the times - we don't seem to do things like run foreign countries with the old formula of dictator and death squad secret police we supply like we used to so much. The cold war is over, new times.
The competition is just disgustingly ugly - ignorance is the best thing about them, from there it goes downhill to evil and pandering.
And that's just what they say - just as Bush didn't say in the campaign he had a hard-on (sorry for the crude metaphor) for war in Iraq but did, it's likely any of the Republican candidates will have surprises for us, whether they know what they are now or are just 'open to them'. These people are all an embarrassing menace to the world on this issue IMO.
There is a wild-card element to them though; the tea party again, has an isolationist streak in conjunction with its 'ban all mosques' type rhetoric.
I think the US needs someone who will pursue real strengthening of international law; decrease defense spending by half; be strong where needed, support things like anti-nuclear proliferation efforts (and a global ban really as Presidents before Bush endorsed), but we don't have that candidate.
Ron Paul offers isolationism based on ideology that I think has its own flaws.
Obama's not that good foreign policy seems the clear choice among poor choices.
3. The economy
Yes, a disastrous situation since Reagan, worsening under Clinton and the Bush, has led to a terrible situation Obama inherited.
Obama has done little to fix it, and little to make it worse - though it is getting worse.
Again he's supported 'better than Republican' policies though they basically are Republican policies. Extending the Bush tax cuts for the top 2%, a weakened finance reform bill, a lack of prosecution for crime in the economic crisis, nothing about 'too big to fail' with banks bigger after the crash, re-appointing the same staff with bad policies, on and on, we need a progressive leader, he's not it.
Republicans, are again just embarrassing - running on empty pandering phrases about 'stopping the socialist' in effect and straw men they don't hate business like Obama does, with little more than right-wing ideology to offer, along with these radical notions of 'not one cent in closing tax loopholes for the rich that were corrupt to pass', threatening the economy not raising the debt ceiling, on and on.
With Obama we get a Wall Street employee - and sadly that's the least bad pick.
4. Supreme Court appointees
I value this a lot - Citiens v. United alone is an example paving the way to massive destruction of our democracy. These 5-4 decisions for years between four right-wing radicals and Kennedy and the traditional four others, are a great harm to the country, setting precedents indefinitely.
This is probably Obama's strongest issue here. He hasn't appointed any liberal justices as I'd like; he has appointed moderates protecting us from more radicals.
Every Republican seems loyal to the radical model. This is basically enough to make re-electing Obama important by itself.
5. I'll reserve this one, as a fifth one doesn't jump out compared to those four.
IMO, Obama is basically a traditional Republican, running as a Democrat, and the alternative is either corporatist and/or far-right candidates.
It's a sad election for America not to have someone better to pick - IMO a Howard Dean, an Al Gore, a John Kennedy, an FDR type.
But to repeat, I think it's Obama continuing as he has, versus disasters. I think it's important we re-elect Obama.
I plan to support the progressive candidate they're looking for now, in the primary.