What a socialist magazine.
I have to admit that i was surprised by that.
In a nutshell they admitted they werent happy with Obama, but were worried that Romney would pander to the increasingly radical elements of the Republican Party.
What a socialist magazine.
"....if there is activity in the ball prior to the rubbing action....
Bill Belichick, Sat Jan 24, 2015
"You may think that you are some kind of god to these people. But we both know what you really are."
"What's that? A criminal?"
"Worse. A politician."
Source: Under The Dome
Republican platform speeches have moved so far to the right that even traditional liberal sources have no choice but to prefer Obama. Obama is in many ways to the right of Nixon and Reagan, and those are the kinds of politicians that they would have loved at the time.
They are based in London and would likely have a more left-leaning and world-view perspective. They are probably more concerned with what is best for the EU and Britain rather than what is best for the US. You also have to consider whether they support Keynesian economics, which would wholly support Obama's policies and viewpoint on the economy. I, on the other hand, reject Keynesian economics and think that the government should keep their hands off of the economy - especially during a recession. Nevertheless, this could be a fairly important endorsement for any undecided voters concerned about the economy.
In endorsement after endorsement, the basic argument is that President Obama hasn’t been able to persuade House or Senate Republicans to work with him. If Obama is reelected, it’s a safe bet that they’ll continue to refuse to work with him. So vote Romney!
That’s not even a slight exaggeration. Take the Des Moines Register, Iowa’s largest and most influential paper. They endorsed Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, and Barack Obama in 2008. But this year, they endorsed Romney.
Why? In the end, they said, it came down to a simple test. “Which candidate could forge the compromises in Congress to achieve these goals? When the question is framed in those terms, Mitt Romney emerges the stronger candidate.”http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...m_business_popThe Orlando Sentinel also endorsed Obama in 2008 and Romney in 2012, and their reasoning is similar to the Register’s. “The next president is likely to be dealing with a Congress where at least one, if not both, chambers are controlled by Republicans,” they write. “It verges on magical thinking to expect Obama to get different results in the next four years.”
For my take on that situation, giving into blackmail and incentivising politicians that not govern is a dangerous move.
Republicans also just buried a report stating that their view that lower top end tax rates creating jobs is incorrect.
Im not going to even touch to "traditional American values" thing, thats to laughable. For someone like me, with our history of overcoming discrimination, Republican positions of equal pay for women and gay rights are anti-American values. I often find that those who use that line(Michele Bachmann comes to mind) cant define what "American values" are.
What is beyond dispute is the numbers. Since Republicans have taken over filibusters have shot through the roof. You cant tell me that "they were just protecting American(!!) values" and Obama had 400 bad ideas....especially since a chunk of that 400 came before he was even elected. I dont even think he was a candidate when those numbers started pilling up.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/21/opinio...ion/index.htmlBut the number of filibusters by Republicans has escalated, and they have been far more willing to use the tactic than their opponents. Since 2007, the Senate Historical Office has shown, Democrats have had to end Republican filibusters more than 360 times, a historic record.
If you wanted to make a thread about how Reid and company filibustered under Bush, id probably agree. They did it and the rate was higher then it was previously. But numbers alone show that Republicans, in all to typical fashion these days, reacted vindictively and in a kneejerk way. The numbers just skyrocketed. They got shut down a few times under Bush, Obama spoke mean about them a few times after winning the presidency, some rich people were presented as villians in the publics eyes: so Democrats had to pay...no matter how sensible the bill they are blocking is. And thats wrong. Thats not governing. No matter how mean Obama was to them or how bad the idea he presented them was, it was conservative politicians job to work through it and build compromises. Instead, they shut it down or banked on the Supreme Court to do their jobs for them.
Much like it says in the link i presented, its sets a dangerous precedence for both parties if this blackmail is rewarded. Its not beyond imagining that the minority will only try and sabotage the majority and refuse to compromise about anything. That is not beyond imagining because weve just lived through it.