Decision Day 2012

Democracy Pushes Forward

Dave Johnson — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 00:33:49 -0500

In the last election the forces of concentrated wealth and corporate power played the same old divide-and-conquer game they have been playing for decades, but this time it didn't work! They tried to divide us by race, religion, sex, sexual preference, class and every other wedge they could find, and it didn't work! The era of dividing the people for profit is over. Democracy pushes forward.

The Conservative Con Game

For decades a simple formula has played out. Divide us by religion, race, whatever, divert our attention, get us to vote out of feat and hate or just get us to stay away from the polls, and they can pocket the spoils. The game has been to pump a few hundred million a year into the Karl Rove/Grover Norquist/conservative movement con game and pull out billions in tax breaks, subsidies, wars-for-profit, grants of monopoly and the other fruits of the lobbying/corruption game.

This time it didn't work.

The Era Of Division Is Over

Today TPM's Josh Marshall wrote about the Nixon years, when Pat Buchanan prepared a strategy memo titled "Dividing the Democrats," advising Republicans to "cut the Democratic Party and country in half; my view is that we would have by far the larger half." They've played it out that way in the decades since, usually with great success. Marshall notes, "But now, in this election, you see the Republican party still cutting the country in half but now having the smaller part."

This time it didn't work, and won't work again. Businesspeople and investors are practical and pragmatic. They don't like to pour money down a rathole. The conservative movement con game has turned into a freakshow, and the money it sucks up has nearly stopped paying off. They still have the House -- largely the result of gerrymandering Congressional districts and not by the preference of the people. So the game is ending.

Division didn't work. Absorb that -- the implications are vast. The professionals who look at the electorate and figure out how to manipulate us into giving them tax cuts and free reign are certainly absorbing this. The billionaires and corporations are not going to pump more hundreds of millions -- billions, in fact -- into the same old politics of division because they understand that now it is a bad investment. The demographics have passed them by. It didn't work. They don't get the big payoff. They aren't likely to play the game again.

Dividing us didn't work, and won't work again. This is a center-left nation. The "brown people," gays, poor and working class, single women, union members, combined with people in other demographic groups who "get it" -- We, the People -- are together enough and strong enough to fight back, so it didn't work.

Fiscal Cliff -- The Next Fight

Now we face another DC elite manipulation designed to shovel even more favors to the wealthy and their corporations. It is called the "Fiscal Cliff" fight.

This is what is going on: Very soon the Bush tax cuts expire. And then the "sequestration" budget cuts -- the result of the "debt ceiling" hostage-taking fight -- begin to slowly kick in. Some of these cuts, like cutting the huge, vast, bloated military budget, are good, and others will hurt as they are phased in. But this is not an emergency, they phase in and can be changed.

In typical "shock doctrine" fashion, the end of the tax cuts and the beginning of the budget cuts are being cast as a "fiscal cliff" that will destroy the economy. A "grand bargain" is proposed to head off the military cuts, cut Social Security and Medicare, and cut tax rates for the wealthy and corporations.

The negotiations for the Grand Bargain take place soon, after the election and between elites, so that democracy is kept at bay. Democracy is messy and gets in the way of the things the elites want. But this view is just wrong.

The Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan/Ayn Rand anti-democracy belief that the public consists of "takers" is just wrong. Our prosperity comes up from the people. We, the People invested in good schools, infrastructure, public structures like our system of laws and courts and universities and libraries and scientific research and we demanded good wages and worker protections and that is what brought us prosperity. Democracy brought us our prosperity.

The fruits of democracy – Social Security, Medicare and health care, good wages and benefits, worker rights and worker safety and the rest of the things We, the People get out of the bargain – are not the problem.

Repeat: the fruits of democracy are not the problem.

And democracy is not the problem. Democracy is what brings the prosperity. A “grand bargain” struck after the election so the bargainers cannot be held accountable is a mistake. It is a corrupt deal and it will hurt our economy.

Let's stop them. If we stop them again, so soon after we stopped them in the election, they will have to face that this is a bad investment, that the demographics have passed them by, that the public has wised up, that democracy pushes forward.

Now We Move Forward

Democracy has pushed forward. It is not an accident that the economy does best in the periods when our democracy is strongest. It is not an accident that the "regular people" economy has stagnated in the decades since Reagan, when the plutocracts corrupted our democracy.

We are on the road to taking our country back for We, the People. Democracy will push forward.

Just before election day Politico presented the official DC elite view that minorities, single women, etc. are not "real" Americans that count, writing,

If President Barack Obama wins, he will be the popular choice of Hispanics, African-Americans, single women and highly educated urban whites. That’s what the polling has consistently shown in the final days of the campaign. It looks more likely than not that he will lose independents, and it’s possible he will get a lower percentage of white voters than George W. Bush got of Hispanic voters in 2000.

A broad mandate this is not.

The elites understood where power rested, and it was not with the people. But that was then, and this is now. What a difference a few days makes.

If minorities, women, gays, working people, elderly, students, clap their hands, does it make a sound in Washington? Does it make a mandate? They think not, we think so. They will find out that it did. Democracy will push forward.

---

Hey check out what happens when you click these:

A Vote Against Despair

Richard Eskow — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:14:16 -0500

Some people I respect are agonizing over their Presidential vote. Others are voting third-party, or not at all. Speaking only for myself, my choice wasn't made lightly: I'll be voting to re-elect a President whose Administration I've often criticized over the last four years. And yet, despite my concerns, I'll be casting that vote without despair.

Why not? Most Americans agree on a broad range of issues, according to polls. Across party lines and "left/right" boundaries, clear majorities oppose cutting Social Security or Medicare to balance the budget. They want to raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires. They want government to invest in restoring our economy. And they want Wall Street held accountable.

Neither candidate is fighting unequivocally for these majority positions. But like the old cliché says: Despair is not an option.

Which isn't to say it's not tempting. What creates despair? According to the informative (if sadistic) dog experiments of Martin Seligman, the culprit is "learned helplessness." Some of us entered this election season with the same emotions Seligman's dogs must have felt as they were led to their electrified cubicles, and with a similar analysis of our situation: Nothing I do matters.

But that's wrong. It does matter. Remember, a relative handful of Americans "Occupied" some public spaces and all of a sudden the political dialogue shifted. (And that movement isn't dead; it may yet regain its strength.)

Then there's this: As was later confirmed, the President intended to propose Social Security cuts in a State of the Union address. But then, as the Wall Street Journal reported, "The decision to hold off was made as the White House came under pressure from Democrats and liberal interest groups who oppose any cuts to Social Security benefits."

That may not sound like much of a victory. But try telling that to the millions of women who are getting by on $850 or so in Social Security checks every month.

Barack Obama and the Democrats will sometimes do the right thing. At other times they can be persuaded or pressured. Mitt Romney and the Republicans are beyond the reach of anything except corporate money.

If any single argument swayed my vote it was Norman Lear's spin on that Golden Oldie of Presidential politics, the Supreme Court. Lear says that Obama's appointees will someday vote to overturn Citizens United. Could he be wrong? Sure. But we know what Mitt Romney's appointees will do.

I live in California, which Obama will win. But if he prevails in the electoral college without winning the popular vote, the right will tie up government and he may never get his nominees confirmed. That's a scenario from hell. So is the election of Mitt Romney, a man who lacks a moral core and whose "closing argument" was a fusillade of cynicism, puffery, and thinly-veiled threats against our system of checks and balances.

And if that's not scary enough, remember: His election would leave Paul Ryan a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

I know, I know. I'm sick of the "lesser of two evils" argument too. It's time we confronted the Evil of Two Lessers, by confronting the systemic corruption in our political system. I can't keep supporting a party run by corporatist centrists in the Clinton mold.

But my first obligation today is to protect my communities - this country and this world are my communities - from catastrophe. Then comes the next obligation: either changing that party or finding another outlet for political action. Electoral politics is only one front in the nonviolent war for real change. And national elections are only one facet of electoral politics.

That's not to say that Thomas Franks doesn't have a point when he says that Obama's made the left "futile and irrelevant." Progressives like Matt Stoller and Chris Hedges have argued against voting for Obama, a position that some have greeted with disdain, contempt, and hostility. The disrespect and sarcasm is a mistake, and it's a poor excuse for an argument. Movements are built on respect, not personal attacks.

Here's an observation that could be used to support Stoller and Hedges: Progressives always vote Democratic, and the party always dismisses them. Tea Party members threatened to bolt, and the GOP's at their beck and call.

That's a reality the progressive movement needs to recognize -- and soon -- without looking for excuses in the Tea Party's funding or powerful backers. Sure, they've got the money, but we've got the numbers. Some of the blame for our "futility and irrelevance" lies not in our stars -- or our candidates -- but in ourselves.

If we passively turn our fate over to the people we vote into office, the critics may be proven right. But if we vote and then act - clearly, forcefully, and decisively - we'll have the chance to achieve some genuine victories.

Some have suggested that we refrain from criticizing the President until the election's over, but I respect people's intelligence and judgement too much for that. Others have tried to paint Barack Obama as a progressive superhero. But I respect my principles - and, more importantly, yours - too much for that. And hagiography is as disempowering as despair.

Besides, reality is reality: Not one Wall Street indictment in four years. A President who says he suspects he and Romney have a "somewhat similar position" on Social Security. A stimulus plan which was a good first step, but which hasn't been followed by unequivocal and persuasive proposals for more much-needed investment.

And yet behind Obama's studied ambiguity lies an inconvenient truth: An Obama victory would be a mandate, not for deficit deals, but for the stemwinding populist rhetoric of his speeches. It would be a victory for the economic plan his campaign promoted with keywords like "jobs," "manufacturing," "energy," "health care," and "retirement."

That's what most people will be voting for when they vote for Barack Obama. He must be held to those words.

We can't outsource our morals or duties to any elected official. Voting is where our obligations begin, not end. If the President who won my vote acts against my principles, I am morally complicit - in cuts to Social Security and Medicare, in drone attacks, in lost civil liberties, and in a free ride for Wall Street. The only antidote for complicity is political action - which also happens to be an antidote for cynicism and hopelessness. And you know what? It just might make a difference.

You can vote with despair. But if your vote comes with a pledge to act, you can vote against despair.

Steve Earle put a slogan on one of his records: "If you don't vote, don't bitch." He's right. And here's a new slogan: "If you do vote, do bitch" - although "bitch," in this case, means "make your voice heard." Vote, of course. And after that, the hell with learned helplessness. We can't let this country go to the dogs.

Obama's Closing Argument: A Winning Message

Terrance Heath — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 12:09:37 -0500

When it comes to politics, it ain’t over ’til it's over. And even then it may not be over. With the presidential election just days away, the contest remains close enough to ensure some jangled nerves and nail-biting among Republicans and Democrats. Still, the latest news and numbers should give President President Barack Obama a boost as he delivers his closing argument to voters.

Should Obama emerge the victor when the dust settles after Tuesday, his closing argument will become the winning message. And voters convinced to reward Obama with a second term on the strength of that message will — and should — expect him to live up to its vision and promise.

Yes, it looks good for President Obama. At least one Republican Senate candidate is attempting to hitch a ride on the president’s coattails. Meanwhile, conservatives are preemptively blaming hurricane Sandy and “rigged” voting machines, Even Mitt Romney has publicly admitted that "it’s possible" Obama could win, Romney’s campaign advisors are already sounding grim, and Romney supporters are turning to prayer.

Two days out from the election, major polls make Obama the favorite to win the election — possibly losing only 2.5 points from his 2008 national vote share. The well-respected Pew Poll puts Obama back in the the lead. Children are the future and Obama’s got their vote, making him the clear winner in a mock elections and polls among future voters. NYT poll guru Nate Silver now gives Obama an 85% chance of winning.

Still, polls don’t win elections. That still takes getting more people the polling place than the other side does. Message plays a big part in that. As President Obama makes his closing argument, the message he’s employing to make his case sounds progressive in places.

We’re In This Together vs “The Same Old Ideas That Don’t Work”

If there’s one underlying theme in Obama’s closing argument it’s what Jared Bernstein summed up as “We’re In This Together,” compared to conservatism’s “You’re On Your Own” ethos. Jumping back into the campaign after returning to the White House to lead the response to hurricane Sandy, Obama returned to the “We’re In This Together” theme at a campaign stop in Milwaukee, Wis.

Obama said “for the past several days all of us have been focused what’s going on on the east coast,” and added that he spoke with officials there this morning as the east recovers from Superstorm Sandy.

“It’s a reminder of how fragile things are sometimes. As a nation we have to mourn those who have been lost, thoughts and prayers go out to the families, we’re going to stay with those whose lives have been upended,” he said.

Obama said heroes and neighbors “who have helped those cope with tragedy” have inspired the country, along with leaders of both parties working together.

“We rise and fall as one nation,” he said.

“We’re all gathered here today because we’ve got more to do,” Obama said.

“We know what works,” Obama said of the policies he has championed during four years.

He said his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, is repacking “the same old ideas that don’t work.”

It’s a return to the theme Obama has employed in some of his best speeches, from his star-making speech at the 2004 Democratic convention to his health care reform to a joint session of congress, and his Tucson memorial speech; and it infuses some of the most important parts of his closing argument.

In the final days of a contest against an opponent whose party and policies offer little more than “the same ideas that don’t work,” Obama’s closing argument touches on issues near and dear to progressives’ hearts.

Deficits, Death and Taxes

In Milwaukee, Obama spoke of ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy — two of the biggest contributors to our current deficit.

“Change is turning the page on a decade of war,” Obama said, adding that it was time to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure.

“If we’re serious about the deficit we also have to ask the wealthiest Americans to go back to the tax rates when Bill Clinton was in office,” he said.

When the country deals with the deficit, he said, “something has to give.”

If Obama wins a second term, the light at the end of the tunnel that is this election will be a deficit-fueled, fast-moving train called the “Fiscal Cliff” — speeding the country towards European-style austerity. In his CNN editorial, Obama elaborated on his approach to the deficit.

Change is an America where we reduce our deficit by cutting spending where we can, and asking the wealthiest Americans to go back to the income tax rates they paid when Bill Clinton was president. I’ve worked with Republicans to cut a trillion dollars of spending, and I’ll do more. I’ll work with anyone of any party to move this country forward. But I won’t agree to eliminate health insurance for millions of poor, elderly, or disabled on Medicaid, or turn Medicare into a voucher just to pay for another millionaire’s tax cut.

The voters who reward Obama with a second term based on points in his closing argument will expect him to remember that if “something has to give,” it should be the the lower-than-ever tax rates of the wealthiest Americans, and not Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. After all, we know that tax cuts don’t stimulate economic growth, and don’t create jobs, and cost revenue because they don’t pay for themselves.

Plus, a huge majority of Americans support “asking the wealthiest Americans to go back to the tax rates when Bill Clinton was in office.” Likewise, most Americans oppose making cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to reduce the deficit.

Standing Athwart The Status Quo

William Buckley once defined conservatism as “Standing athwart history, yelling ‘Stop.’” As the campaign approaches the finished line, President Obama, in Boulder, Co., portrayed his opposition as standing athwart the status quo, stopping every attempt to repair the economy and speed its recovery.

And he appealed for more time to overcome the “protectors of the status quo” that have stood in his way.

“Every time we’ve tried to make change, they’ve fought back with everything they’ve got,” he told voters in Wisconsin. “Their strategy from the start was to engineer pure gridlock in Congress.”

It’s likely that Obama will encounter just as much opposition in his second term as in his first, despite his earlier optimism that “the fever may break” and “common sense” take hold of the GOP after his re-election. Democrats are slated to keep the Senate, but Republicans are still likely to keep their majority in the House.

“Sometimes You Have To Pick A Fight”

If President Obama is faced with the same kind of obstruction in his second term that he dealt with so often in his third, perhaps he should remember something the late Sen. Paul Wellstone once said: “Sometimes you have to pick a fight to win one.” In Ohio, Obama hinted that he might show more fighting spirit in a second term.

At the second of his three Ohio rallies Friday, Obama delivered a fervent version of his own closing argument to a similar number of supporters at a high school gym in Springfield. He pledged to work with Republicans in Congress in a second term but acknowledged there would still be some “struggles and fights.”

“I’m a very nice guy, people will tell you. I really am,” Obama said. But if “the price of peace in Washington” means cutting deals to slash student financial aid or give health-insurance companies more power, “I’m not going to make that deal,” he added. “That’s a price I’m not willing to pay.”

Turning up the volume as the crowd responded, Obama insisted: “That’s not bipartisanship. That’s not change. That’s surrender to the status quo.” And he pledged, “I am a long ways away from giving up on this fight. I got a lot of fight left in me. I don’t get tired. I don’t grow weary. I hope you aren’t tired either, Ohio.”

President Obama’s should spend less time seeking compromise with a party that’s proven it’s willing to risk the plunging the nation into economic ruin just to avoid giving him a “win.” Instead, the president should pick a fight and then “take it to the streets,” making his case directly to the American people, and let them put the pressure on conservatives to account for their behavior.

The Guardian’s Gary Younge writes that a Romney win would reward Republicans for bad behavior. And Obama win would reward the president for both his record thus far and a closing argument that convinces voters to give him a second term — and his closing argument will become more than just a winning message. It will set the standard voters will expect President Obama to live up to.

The Unending Campaign Of Lies

Dave Johnson — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:12:22 -0500

Wow, an entire campaign based on lies... Often they were simply ridiculous lies. (Remember when Romney said Obama will take God off our coins"?) The campaign even used doctored audio and video in ads to make people think Obama had said things he never said. So MANY lies! The country is divided by an entire political philosophy based on lies -- by an entire massively-well-funded conservative ecosystem dependent on lies. Half the country is convinced by this propaganda machine that the lies are true and that policies that never worked did work. So we are mired in this mud of lies that keeps us from solving our problems. Global warming, lack of demand, lack of jobs, lack of good wages, lack of energy alternatives, lack of good infrastructure... This environment of lies can't lead us anywhere good.

Romney Actually Said ...

Romney -- a candidate for President of the United States -- actually said that Obama was going to "take God off our coins!" He said Obama was waging "a war on religion!" He said Obama sympathizes with Muslim rioters. He said Obama was trying to keep members of our military from voting! A candidate for President of the United States said those things! This is not just insulting to the country, it is deeply embarrassing to the country. It is an illness.

Look at just some of the campaign lies at our Romney Lies collection. We were unable to even begin to keep up:

The Maddow Blog's Mendacity collection actually tried to keep up with all the lies. Just wow.

It is insulting to all of us, the disrespect shown in this willingness to just lie to us. This is the disrespect of a person willing to throw people out of their jobs, force wage cuts on the remainders, and pocket those wages for himself. It is the disrespect shown to a young kid who was chased down by a bully, thrown to the ground, and had his hair cut off.

And he still has another day of campaigning, and spreading destructive lies.

No More Lies!

Watch this powerful Neil Young video, The Restless Consumer.

The people have heard the news
The people have spoken
You may not like what they said
But they weren't jokin'

Way out on the desert sands
Lies a desperate lover
They call her the "Queen of Oil"
So much to discover

Don't need no ad machine
Telling me what I need
Don't need no Madison Avenue War
Don't need no more boxes I can see

Covered in flags but I can't see them on TV

Don't need no more lies
Don't need no more lies
Don't need no more lies
Don't need no more lies

The restless consumer flies
Around the world each day
With such an appetite for taste and grace

People from around the world
Need someone to listen
We're starving and dying from our disease
We need your medicine
How do you pay for war
And leave us dyin' ?
When you could do so much more
You're not even tryin'

Don't need no TV ad
Tellin' me how sick I am
Don't want to know how many people are like me
Don't need no dizziness
Don't need no nausea
Don't need no side effects like diarrhea or sexual death

Don't need no more lies
Don't need no more lies
Don't need no more lies
Don't need no more lies

The restless consumer lies
Asleep in her hotel
With such an appetite
For anything that sells

A hundred voices from a hundred lands
Need someone to listen
People are dying here and there
They don't see the world the way you do
There's no mission accomplished here
Just death to thousands

A hundred voices from a hundred lands
Cry out in unison

Don't need no terror squad
Don't want no damned Jihad
Blowin' themselves away in my hood
But we don't talk to them
So we don't learn from them
Hate don't negotiate with Good

Don't need no more lies
Don't need no more lies
Don't need no more lies
Don't need no more lies

The restless consumer flies
Around the world each day
With such an appetite for efficiency
And pace...

Don't need no more lies.

---

Hey check out what happens when you click these:

FINAL UPDATE: Top 12 Excuses Conservatives Are Already Making For Losing The Election

Bill Scher — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 10:30:31 -0500

FINAL UPDATE 11/5/12: The final days wouldn't be complete without a final excuse: Hurricane Sandy.

UPDATE 10/5/12: This post when originally published on Oct. 3 was a "Top 10" list. It has been expanded to include the new excuse: "Chicago" Rigged The Jobs Numbers.

All the current polling has President Obama beating Mitt Romney and Republicans failing to take over the Senate. There is an obvious reason for this: the public likes how progressive Democratic policies have worked in the past four years more than how conservative Republican policies worked in the past eight.

Accepting the obvious is proving difficult for conservative leaders. Instead of taking responsibility for past policy mistakes and proposing changes, conservatives are frantically coming up with various excuses why they are about to take a ballot box beating.

The list is impressive. Let it not be said conservatives are not creative.

12. "Chicago" Rigged The Jobs Numbers

When the career civil servants at the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the unemployment rate dropped to 7.8%, conservatives immediately concluded it was evidence of a "Chicago" conspiracy. From Politico:

“Chicago style politics is at work here,” Florida GOP Rep. Allen West wrote on his Facebook page. “Somehow by manipulation of data, we are all of a sudden below 8 percent unemployment, a month from the presidential election. This is Orwellian to say the least and representative of Saul Alinsky tactics from the book “Rules for Radicals” — a must read for all who want to know how the left strategize.”

...

Jack Welch, the former CEO of General Electric and a frequent Obama critic, also suggested the numbers were cooked [on Twitter]. “Unbelievable jobs numbers. … these Chicago guys will do anything … can’t debate so change numbers." ... Eric Bolling, saw something sinister at work [also on Twitter]. “WOW Obama Labor Dept (7.8%) smarter than all 25 of Americas top Economists (8.2%est) … or something far more insideous [sic]." Radio host Laura Ingraham also bought in [on Twitter]. “Jobs #s from Labor Secretary Hilda Solis are total pro-Obama propaganda..."

11. The Fed Rigged It

When the Federal Reserve announced a new round of "quantitative easing" or "QE3" to accelerate job recovery, several House Republicans accused it of rigging the election for President Obama. The Hill reported:

“It really is interesting that it is happening right now before an election,” said Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho). “It is going to sow some growth in the economy, and the Obama administration is going to claim credit.” “I am shocked, just shocked, that politics are going on in this city!” Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) said sarcastically.

...

“They are the ones who always say they want to remain independent. So they should consider, just how independent are they when they come out, only 50 days before the election, with this?” said Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.).

And here's Fox News pundit Andrew Napolitano saying that QE3 is "intended to make somebody look good between now and November 6. You know who that is,"

10. Skewed Polls Depressed Republican Turnout

Many conservatives are complaining that most national polls are "oversampling" Democrats, even though most pollsters don't weigh their data based on party identification since partisan makeup of the electorate can fluctuate.

Glenn Beck's "news" site "The Blaze" amplified a blog post touting the conservative theory behind the poll numbers: "These over-samplings serve a few purposes but mainly drive down enthusiasm for Republicans while assisting the Obama campaign with 'bandwagon' supporters who simply like being on the winning team..."

9. The Government Suppressed The Military Vote

On Fox & Friends, guest co-host Eric Bolling asserted that "it's becoming more difficult, relatively more difficult, for military personnel to get an absentee ballot, yet we're supposed to believe that getting a photo ID just makes it way too difficult for an American citizen to vote."

As Media Matters noted, the head of the Military Voter Protection Project, which provided the data that Fox & Friends based its discussion on, said, "The military voting issue has existed long before the current administration. I simply don't see any politics at play."

8. The Government Allowed People To Vote Early

Having more people be able to vote, by states allowing ballots to be cast before Nov. 6, is a "recipe for fraud," according to Rush Limbaugh.

7. ACORN. Again.

From Dean Chambers of UnskewedPolls.com fame:

While the media is creating the perception that Obama can and is winning, the campaign and it’s supporters are working with their allies and former members and leaders in groups like ACORN and others to change the actual vote outcomes as much as they can. ... By creating the perception that Obama is winning, the media is giving the campaign a margin in which to be able to engage in voter fraud and make it believable ... this is precisely why Obama’s Justice Department under Attorney General Eric Holder is fighting voter identification laws so strongly. They know they are far less likely to win the if the election if honest and fair.

The national ACORN organization no longer exists.

6. Obama Was Never Vetted

In March, Breitbart.com launched "The Vetting" because "Andrew [Breitbart] wanted to do what the mainstream media would not. First and foremost: Andrew pledged to vet President Barack H. Obama ... he wanted to show that the media had failed in its most basic duty: to uncover the truth, and hold those in power accountable, regardless of party. From today through Election Day, November 6, 2012, we will vet this president..."

Breibart.com has been "vetting" ever since. Daily Caller too.

And yet, it is never enough. Red State's Erick Erickson wrote recently: "Honestly, he hasn’t really been vetted. We do not know a lot about Barack Obama from his time before the United States Senate. Much of what we could learn has conveniently disappeared. The few things we do know — like his connections to terrorist Bill Ayers — are dismissed by the media."

5. The Libya Cover-Up

Rush. Try to follow.

They engage in a cover-up. They concocted a phony scenario. ... They don't even care. They got their political mileage out of this. They established the narrative that it was the video. They had a solid week of doing that, no matter who was protesting and saying it wasn't. They had the world believing it and the US media spreading that it was a video. Now the guy that did the video is in jail, and there's nothing to see here anymore. We move on.

Now it's the economy, and "it couldn't be tackled any better by anybody else." The Clinton bump. Democrat National Convention. That's exactly right! Obama cares, as Michelle told us and he told us. Biden told us how much Obama cares. "Gosh, he doesn't do anything but worry about the economy and jobs!"

...

Here's why the FBI isn't there: The FBI will find out what happened, and the regime does not want that reported. The FBI will not lie about what they find, so the regime's gotta keep them out of there.

4. Romney Wasn't Conservative Enough

Laura Ingraham declared "conservatism wins" always, therefore Romney losing must mean he's not being conservative enough.

Rush Limbuagh similarly concluded that if Romney "would just go full-bore conservative [he would] wrap it up."

3. The American People Are "Morons" Hooked On Welfare

El Rushbo:

Obama's out on The View and with Letterman and so forth. That's who he's gunning for. That audience. He's really coalescing the Moron Vote. He's banking on the fact that of the universe of Americans who vote, that there's a winning majority of morons in there. He's got academia and he's got the media and he's got the Hollywood crowd. Then he's going after the actual Americans outside those institutions. He's not going for the middle class. He's going for the morons.

This apparently is why, according to Rush, Obama forcibly put half of America on welfare: "Obama sees welfare recipients as a majority coalition, and now we have record numbers of people on food stamps. Coincidence?"

2. He's Black

George Will:

Obama’s administration is in shambles, yet he is prospering politically. This may not, however, entirely be evidence of the irrationality of the electorate. Something more benign may be at work.

...

the nation, which is generally reluctant to declare a president a failure — thereby admitting that it made a mistake in choosing him — seems especially reluctant to give up on the first African American president. If so, the 2012 election speaks well of the nation’s heart, if not its head.

1. The Hurricane Did It

As Talking Points Memo thoroughly covers, top Republicans are shoehorning in one last excuse before it's all over:

“The hurricane is what broke Romney’s momentum. I don’t think there’s any question about it,” said Haley Barbour, a former Mississippi governor, RNC chairman and respected political strategist, on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday. “What happened was the news media absolutely blacked out any coverage of the issues.”

Karl Rove made a similar argument to the Washington Post on Saturday.

“If you hadn’t had the storm, there would have been more of a chance for the [Mitt] Romney campaign to talk about the deficit, the debt, the economy,” said the Republican strategist who is spending millions to help Romney win. “There was a stutter in the campaign.” He described it as a “subtle disadvantage to Romney” on balance.

“Obama has temporarily been a bipartisan figure this week. He has been the comforter-in-chief and that helps,” Rove said. The storm, he told the Post, was “the October surprise. For once, the October surprise was a real surprise.”

Anonymous Romney campaign aides sounded the same note to CBS News.

“Campaign sources concede superstorm Sandy stalled Romney’s momentum. For eight straight days, polls showed him picking up support,” read an article Saturday afternoon. “[Romney’s] leads in Florida, Virginia, North Carolina and Iowa still hold in the internal polls, campaign sources say, but Romney’s movement flattened out or, as the campaign likes to say, ‘paused.’ Nevada is now off the table, and those neck-and-neck swing states are even tighter.”

It is highly debatable whether or not attention to the Hurricane stalled Romney's uptick in the polls, or if it was one of many other factors, or if it had stalled out before the storm's landfall.

But even if it was largely the hurricane, what Barbour misses is Sandy didn't "black[] out any coverage of the issues," the ability of the president to lead in crisis, work well with others and effectively manage our government is precisely what Romney was trying to question, and which the response to the disaster thoroughly refuted.

Some Middle-Class Zeros Could Get Zeroed Out Tuesday

Isaiah J. Poole — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 07:53:44 -0500

At least seven toss-up races in the House that will be decided Tuesday feature strong progressive challengers trying to unseat Republican incumbents who received zeros in this year's TheMiddleClass.org Voter Guide.

Victories by progressives in these races will help dispel the notion that strong progressive populist campaigns can't work in swing districts. They will also help undermine any effort to assert a mandate for continuing in the direction of cutting programs that provide economic support for middle-class and low-income families while continuing tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

The middle-class zeros in trouble include Jeff Denham, Dan Lungren and Mary Bono Mack in California; Mike Coffman in Colorado; Allen West in Florida; Dan Benishek in Michigan and Frank Guinta in New Hampshire. Their bids for reelection are rated as toss-ups today by both the Cook Political Report and Real Clear Politics. Each of them are facing Democrats who have pledged to protect Social Security and Medicare, push back against the austerity agenda of congressional conservatives and fight efforts to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

The doctor challenging Bono Mack, Raul Ruiz, has begun to draw some national notice for his his success in building what appears to be a lead against Bono Mack, who has been in Congress since the death of her husband, singer Sonny Bono, died in a 1998 skiing accident. Ruiz, an emergency room physician, is running on a platform that includes supporting giving the government the ability to negotiate lower prescription drug prices for Medicare recipients. He wants to crack down on banks responsible for the foreclosure crisis and fight for more homeowner protections. And he won the endorsement of The Desert Sun, a newspaper that had endorsed Bono Mack in all of her previous races, in part by supporting ending the Bush tax cuts for people earning more than $1 million, while Bono Mack has insisted that the wealthy not have to pay more in taxes to help reduce the federal deficit.

Also in California, Jose Hernandez, a former NASA astronaut, has run a strong campaign against Denham. In contrast to Denham, Hernandez has supported increased federal spending on such job-creating initiatives as high-speed rail. He is also a strong advocate for government spending in research, making the case that these investments support the creation of American jobs. He opposes Republican plans to turn Medicare into a voucher program and says “Social Security is a promise and it’s a promise I will keep.”

And in the state's seventh congressional district, another doctor, Ami Bera, is running a competitive race based in part on opposing the Republican voucher plan for Medicare. Bera has served as Sacramento County’s chief medical operator and worked as a clinical professor of medicine at University of California at Davis. He supports investment in stem cell research and new medical technology. And he says he wants to clean up Wall Street by working to end credit card scams; close corporate loopholes and end bailouts, golden parachutes, and outrageous CEO bonuses.

The Colorado race of Joe Miklosi against middle-class zero Mike Coffman is aided in part by a redrawn congressional district, which includes a secttion of the state that had been represented by the infamous hard-right congressman Tom Tancredo. But it is Coffman's adherence to Tea Party dogma and the clear contrast that Miklosi is offering that is making this race one to watch as a potential progressive gain. Miklosi is unabashedly pro-choice and pro-gay rights, in sharp contrast to Coffman, and Miklosi also opposes cutting subsidies for higher education and reducing Pell grants. He wants to strengthen buy America laws and end tax breaks for outsourcers.

In New Hampshire, Carol Shea-Porter, who was the first congressional district representative from 2007 until 2011, has the endorsement of Bold Progressives. She is campaigning in support of the Obama administration's American Jobs Act, an end to the Bush tax cuts and in opposition to cuts in Social Security and Medicare. She is also an advocate for public financing of elections.

In Florida, incumbent and Tea Party champion Allen West has built a stunning $15 million war chest in one of the country's most expensive congressional races, but his challenger Patrick Murphy is trying to turn he notoriety of West's extremism into a disadvantage. Murphy pledges that he will "oppose any change to Social Security and Medicare that will negatively impact our seniors. … The recent Republican attack on Medicare - attempting to force seniors to shop on the open market for health care coverage - must be vigorously opposed.”

In Michigan, challenger Gary McDowell is running on a platform opposing the Medicare voucher proposal and Social Security privatization.

He promises to support ending tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies, while supporting middle-class tax cuts. And he takes a populist tack when talking about standing against Wall Street bailouts and exorbitant bonuses for CEOs of failing banks.

These are among the top races to watch to see if progressive candidates have found a way to effectively counter Tea Party insanity and bring common-sense economic policies to the House of Representatives.

Researcher Ben Johnson contributed to this post.

Romney's Hopey-Changey, Hostage-Taking "Closing Argument"

Richard Eskow — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:14:47 -0400

Mitt Romney's campaign promoted the speech he gave today as his "closing argument." Underneath the fluff, that argument boils down to this: Give me the Presidency or your economy gets it.

The PuffBot 3000

Romney's speech was so weighted down with preprogrammed platitudes it could've been written by a computer: Just feed in the clichés and let 'er rip.

"If you believe we can do better, if you believe America should be on a better course, if you are tired of being tired, then I ask you to vote for real change."

You mean, "change we can believe in"?

"... our campaign has gathered the strength of a movement. It’s not just the size of the crowds, it’s the depth of our shared conviction … the readiness for new possibilities … the sense that the challenges are clear and our work will soon begin."

The 2008 campaign just called. It wants its Democratic candidate back.

"This is not just about Paul and me--it is about America."

This particular cliché usually doesn't include the word "just." I can almost picture Romney saying to his speechwriter (or "speechbot"), "Whaddya mean, not about me? Not even a little?"

"... strive even more to be worthy of the office … to campaign as I would govern … to speak for the aspirations of all Americans... bring people together ... big things ... common good ... ’ best of America..."

I kept waiting for to see a screen pop up before my eyes: "> AWAITING NEXT USER COMMAND."

Remember when Sarah Palin mocked Obama voters by asking, "How's that hopey-changey thing workin' out for ya?" Romney's "hopey-changey" message is more of the same right-wing extremism that crashed our economy once before.

I. Am. From. Your. Future.

If there was one pedal on the rhetorical organ Romney overused today it was the word "future," which left his lips nine times in today's speech. (He even used the phrase "campaign for America's future," which should disturb my colleagues no end.) "Words are cheap," Romney also said. "A record is real."

Romney's record apparently missed today's rally.

"I built a business," said Romney, "and turned around another." But he "built" that business as a paid employee of its parent, Bain and Co., and "turned around" several others by laying off thousands of American workers -- and, at times, by choosing executives and designing payment incentives that led to rampant medical billing fraud. (See "Sick Money.")

Who was that Mitt Romney, if not the candidate on today's podium? A clone?

"I helped turn my state from deficit to surplus," said Romney, "from job losses to job growth, and from higher taxes to higher take-home pay."

There's a "Gov. Romney" in the public record, but that Romney raised fees and taxes on the middle class, left the state a billion-dollar deficit, and lagged so far behind a booming economy's job growth that Massachusetts fell from 36th to 47th place. So who was that guy?

Another clone, apparently.

"I will be a voice of the children and their parents," Romney said today. But the Romney campaign's own white paper on education promises a field day for for-profit education companies, not children and parents. He'd bring rapacious banks back into the student loan process and funnel public money to for-profit schools.

Pell Grants for college education offer a badly-needed gateway to a better life for young people not born with Romney's wealth and privilege. But the Romney paper sneers at them. Pell grant funding reflects our "expanding entitlement mentality," the author sniffs.

No wonder Romney used the word "future" so much. He must be from there. Who else could have so many clones running around, doing things that are against his own principles?

Attack and Destroy

Romney asked his audience to "look beyond the speeches and the attacks and the ads." That was odd, since he was giving a speech - and was only seconds away from launching into his usual litany of attacks. And as for "ads," one of the latest from Romney is a Miami-area attack ad in Spanish which links Obama to Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Cuba's Fidel Castro. Apparently red-baiting never goes out of style.

(The Chavez ad has a clip the Venezuelan leader saying "If Obama was from Barlovento he'd vote for Chazez." Most Americans are less familiar with the region than Romney's target audience, who know that Barlovento's population is primarily of African descent. The ad also appeals to racism.)

Romney's campaign must've known the ads were dirty, since they broke with their typical practice and didn't distribute them to the press.

Love Offerings

Here is Romney's real "closing argument" : By cutting taxes even more for guys like me, you all will do a little better too. But that approach failed for ten years, so the argument makes no economic sense.

Romney may be hoping that it makes emotional sense. When I was a kid there was a TV preacher named Reverend Ike. The Reverend told audiences that if they sent him money - a "love offering," I think he called it - they would soon prosper themselves. He called that magical payback an "Increase of God."

His economic "plan" is even called "Believe in America." That sounds right, since it's essentially economic faith-healing. There's no "plan" behind the verbiage, just the desire to keep siphoning off the nation's wealth to the already wealthy. Don't call it "inequity," call it a "love offering."

Mitt Romney is the Reverend Ike of American politics.

Dog Day Afternoon

The ugliest part of the speech excoriated Obama for being too "partisan" and not working with the GOP Congress. Obama tried so hard to work with those Republicans, in fact, that he waited too long to tell the American people about the GOP's obstructionist battle plan, which Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell described clearly when asked why Republicans wanted control of the House and Senate:

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

Behind Romney's sweet-sounding words is an ugly, ugly threat: elect me or we'll paralyze the government and shatter the economy. "You know that if the President is re-elected," Romney said, "he will still be unable to work with the people in Congress."

He forgot to mention why.

Romney continued: "The debt ceiling will come up again, and shutdown and default will be threatened, chilling the economy."

Translation: "Nice little economy ya got here. I'd hate to see something ... happen to it."

Responsible Parties

"You can choose your future," Romney said. But if there's one thing American people are less able to do with each passing year, it's "choose their own future." Social mobility is its lowest in modern history, and wealth inequity is at its highest. Romney's plans will make things much, much worse.

"You can choose real change," said Romney. But all he's really promising is more of the same oligarchical greed we've seen for decades - and on steroids this time.

"I’m not just going to take office on January 20th," Romney said, "I’m going to take responsibility." That would presumably distinguish him from the 47 percent of Americans who, according to what he told rich backers, will never "take responsibility for their own lives."

But it's Romney, not the people, who hasn't taken responsibility. He won't take responsibility for his business record. He won't take responsibility for his record as Governor. He won't take responsibility for the actions of his own campaign, or for his own words. And he won't take responsibility for the opportunities this country has given him by paying his fair share of taxes.

Mitt Romney is apparently hoping that the citizens of this country won't take their voting responsibility seriously, either - at least, not seriously enough to look up his record. Next Tuesday we'll find out whether he's right.

Mitt Romney: Tribune of the Plutocracy

Robert Borosage — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 11:49:24 -0400

After months of campaigning and hundreds of millions in advertising, voters and commentators still seem uncertain about Mitt Romney. Is he the "severe conservative" of the primaries, or the moderate of the last days eager to reach across the aisle? Does he have core beliefs or is he prepared to shift anything to appeal to his audience? Does he think he gets away with peddling lies without shredding his credibility?

It's useful to remember the obvious. The flip-flops on social issues, the lies and distortions, the empty five-point plan recycled from previous Republican campaigns don't reveal it. The truth is much simpler.

Romney is the candidate of, by and for the 1 percent. He is a plutocrat peddling the agenda of the plutocracy.

The Plutocracy's Agenda

Step back from the partisan posturing and political rhetoric for a moment. Ask yourself a simple question. What is the agenda of the richest Americans? What would they want to consolidate their position?

In every case, Romney takes up their cause.

Tax Breaks for Wealth

The top 1 percent possesses more wealth than 90 percent of Americans. Obviously, if you are wealthy, you want to reduce taxes on wealth. So Romney advocates eliminating the estate tax, a tax that applies only to the estates of multimillionaires. This would ensure that the concentrated wealth is passed on from generation to generation.

Tax Breaks for High Income

The top 1 percent pocket about 24 percent of the country's annual income. They prefer lower taxes on high incomes. So Romney advocates a 20 percent cut in tax rates across the board, including for the top 1 percent.

But the real deal is income from wealth. The wealthiest 0.1 percent (about 315,000 people) collect fully half of all income from capital gains, now taxed at 15 percent. Romney would sustain the lower rate of taxation for capital gains and dividends. He even defends the obscene "carried interest" tax dodge that allows private equity billionaires to pay income from their fees at the lower capital gains rate. Not surprisingly, he opposes the Buffett Rule that requires millionaires to pay at least the same rate as their secretaries.

Tax Breaks for Corporations

The wealthiest Americans naturally want lower taxes on the companies that help generate their wealth. So Romney advocates lowering the corporate tax rate, while closing unspecified loopholes to pay for it. More importantly, he supports a "territorial tax system," that would eliminate any U.S. taxes on profits made or reported abroad. This essentially turns the entire world into a potential tax haven for multinationals, encouraging them to move jobs or report income abroad.

Deregulation of Finance

The 1 percent cleaned up as Wall Street inflated the housing bubble, selling complicated derivatives and mortgage-backed securities to gouge municipalities, pension funds or German banks. After the crash, the wealthiest 1 percent emerged from the ruins capturing over 90 percent of national income growth. So naturally, they want to reopen the casino.

The bank lobby has been hard at work trying to weaken the Dodd-Frank financial reforms signed into law in 2010. Romney goes a step further, promising to repeal the reforms and replace them with undisclosed weaker regulation.

More Corporate Trade Accords

With multinationals defining our trade policy, globalization has been a boon to the 1 percent. Trade accords like NAFTA have helped make the world safe for global investors. Shipping good jobs abroad or threatening to do so has helped suppress demands for wage hikes here at home. So naturally, Romney promises more trade accords as part of his five-point plan. (He also pledges to get tough with China, but it is very hard to see this as anything other than a political posture for Ohio voters. Bain Capital was a pathbreaker in offshoring jobs to China. ) And needless to say, he opposes any measures that might give workers greater ability to organize and bargain collectively.

Cater to Entrenched Interests

For all the talk of innovation, the already wealthy profit from the arrangements and
industries we have and want them protected and succored. So naturally, Romney touts energy independence to defend subsidies to old energy — coal, oil, gas and nuclear, while scorning Obama's investments in new energy, opposing even the tax credit that helped spark wind energy investments in this country. This requires a purblind denial of global warming and of the catastrophic climate effects we are already witnessing. It also reveals one of the costs of a plutocracy: the subsidizing of existing predatory interests interferes with capturing the lead in new growth industries, of which clean energy is surely one.

A Military Committed to Policing the World

With investments across the world, the 1 percent crave order. Traders want the seas to be safe, overseas investments to be honored. So the richest 1 percent want the U.S. to maintain the strongest military in the world and then some. Romney, naturally, supports adding a trillion dollars to the Pentagon's budgets, with a particular emphasis on building ships to patrol global waters.

A Smaller Government

The richest 1 percent have little need for much of government. Their gated communities have private patrols. They are removed from industrial areas scarred by pollution and chemical poisons. They send their kids to private schools. They travel by private jet. They have private playgrounds for their vacations.

So naturally, they prefer small government, with limited support for the "victims" who "don't take responsibility for their lives," to quote Romney famously describing the 47 percent to a group of wealthy donors. Naturally, Romney supports deep cuts in domestic programs (while refusing to disclose what he would cut, other than Big Bird). He would savage Medicaid, turn Medicare into a voucher — pushing more costs onto seniors. He has embraced not only Paul Ryan as his running mate, but Ryan's budget, which would simply eviscerate everything from education to disease control to child nutrition to the FBI (but specifies cuts in none of them). Not surprisingly, he would repeal health care reform, stripping some 50 million people of the health insurance they would receive.

Austerity for the Many

Now that Wall Street has blown up the economy, leaving large deficits in its
wake, the richest 1 percent have every reason to be concerned. Getting the economy back on track requires more public spending to put people to work, plus attention to broken and destabilizing policies in trade, progressive taxation, compensation, affordable health care and more.

Instead, the 1 percent agenda is to use the crisis in "shock doctrine" fashion to rollback basic social protections — particularly Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Romney promises to balance the budget, but only after lowering tax rates on the wealthy and the corporations and hiking spending on the Pentagon. That inevitably means that the poor and the middle class will bear the burden of austerity in higher fees and taxes, and less public support or protection.

Now, to be fair, not all of the 1 percent carry this self-interested agenda. Some join Warren Buffett in support of higher taxes on the affluent. Some oppose our trade policies. Some understand the importance of social protections and public investment.

But at the end of the day, Romney is a plutocrat running on the plutocracy's agenda.

Americans sort of get this. As a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll showed, most Americans continue to think Romney's policies favor the rich, not the middle class. Majorities think Obama better understands the economic problems of the middle class than Romney.

This explains, to a great extent, Romney's challenge. The salesman from Bain must convince enough Americans that the plutocracy's agenda will trickle down on them. People are looking for change. But the "big change" Romney is now peddling looks a lot like the stuff that has been tried, and has failed, before.