Obama vs Romney On Issues Mattering Most
By Stephen Lendman
9-10-12
Both candidates represent duopoly power. They're two sides of the same coin.
Differences between them are minor. On issues mattering most, they're in
lockstep.
In January 2013, America will be run by rogues whoever wins. Under either
party, expect the next four years to be worse than previous ones.
Lame duck Obama will be unrestrained. Religious extremist/corporate predator
Romney promises the worst of his agenda and then some.
Money power runs America. Wall Street owns both candidates. Whatever giant
banks want they'll get. Expect victory for whichever one they prefer. They
get to choose, not voters.
Interlocking directorates assure all major corporate interests are served.
Bottom line priorities matter most. War profiteering boosts them. Expect
permanent ones because they want them.
Both candidates assure them. Differences between them reflect tone and
nuance, not substance. Romney talks tough. In late August, his campaign
co-chair Governor Tim Pawlenty (R. MN) said diplomacy is running out on
Iran. It's time to "start the clock ticking."
Options so far haven't worked, he said. He wants Congress to pass an
authorization to use military force. Doing so assures it. Millions of
potential deaths don't matter. Nor do rule of law principles about attacking
a nonbelligerent country posing no threat.
Romney's policy is bombs away. So is Obama's. His softer tone conceals it
better. It hides what he has in mind. Occasionally he makes overt threats.
They reveal his real intentions.
Last March he said he won't "hesitate to use force" to prevent Iran from
building nuclear weapons. He knows none exist or a program to develop them
but won't say.
Instead he states "all options are on the table...That includes all elements
of American power," isolating Iran, "a diplomatic effort to sustain our
coalition and ensure (close monitoring), an economic effort that imposes
crippling sanctions, and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any
contingency."
"Rest assured," he added, "the Iranian government will know of our resolve."
Days ago, he laid down "red lines." They're triggers for war. They likely
advanced the timeline. Long ago it was planned.
Expect it post-election or perhaps sooner against Iran and Syria. Whether
one precedes the other remains to be seen. Each nation is targeted for
regime change. Both parties endorse it. Obama or Romney makes no difference.
It's baked in the cake.
Not according to Nation magazine. Its editorial policy scorns truth. Since
the 19th century, it turned reality on its head. Early on, it was
unapologetic about slavery. It fell short of supporting labor, minorities,
and women's rights.
It championed 19th century laissez faire. It attacked the Grangers,
Populists, trade unions and socialists. It 1999, it called NATO's
Serbia/Kosovo aggression "humanitarian intervention."
Post-9/11, it backed the Big Lie. Initially, it supported imperial wars on
Afghanistan and Iraq. It claimed no evidence showed America's 2004
presidential election was stolen.
In January 2006, it ran a full-page "Arabian Fables" ad. It claimed
Palestinians are prone to violence and deception. Weeks later, it said
Haiti's Jean-Bertrand Aristide was "feared and despised." It blamed Haitians
for their own misery.
It urged ending "Qaddafi's despotic rule (and) sav(ing) the lives of those
bravely resisting his onslaught." Doing so ignored clear evidence of
imperial ravaging another nonbelligerent state.
It twists reality on its head about Syria. It calls a Western sponsored
invasion a "violent (sectarian) civil war." It suggested Lakhdar Brahimi's
appointment might make a difference. It ignores his role as Washington's
point man. Like his predecessor, he's a reliable imperial tool.
It's less than candid suggesting Obama doesn't want war on Iran. It doesn't
explain its lawlessness against a nonbelligerent country threatening no one.
It downplays illegal sanctions. It stops short of denouncing Netanyahu's
hawkishness and Israel's ruthless agenda.
It unabashedly supports Democrats. It pretends they're different than
Republicans. It called Obama sellout on healthcare "a historic (victory) for
reform."
It described Democrat convention phony populism as "Change We Can Believe
in, 2.0."
Editor Katrina van den Heuvel wrote it. She's an establishment figure. Her
background is elitist. She appears often on corporate TV. She gets regular
Washington Post op-ed space. She's a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
member. It shows in what she endorses.
She said Democrats reminded us "that elections matter." She called Obama
"our first community organizer president." He's "against the plutocrats who
want to buy our elections."
He's "committed to 'We the people' and a challenger convinced that
'corporations are people.' "
Romney/Ryan winning "would spell full-spectrum disaster. An Obama
victory...would bring few guarantees...(N)o person makes change alone...But
a second term presents an opportunity for change."
She called one of his campaign speeches a "barn-burn(er)."
"Hope - not rosy optimism but the belief that hard work and commitment makes
changes - springs eternal."
Her unabashed support ignores four lawless years, a president beholden to
big money, a consummate con man, a serial liar and moral coward. He exceeded
the worst of George Bush. Imagine what he has in mind if given four more
years.
Republicans, in contrast, are bashed. Nation editors call them "the
Post-Truth Party." Obama's lies are ignored. Republican ones are
highlighted.
They "pose a real challenge for the Democrats (not to) get bogged down in
the minutiae of every" one...(T)here are too many of them."
Democrats by implication are squeaky clean. In fact, they're in lockstep on
destroying social America. Medicare, Medicaid, and other New Deal/Great
Society programs are on the chopping block for elimination.
Job creation is moribund. Both parties oppose creating them. Since Obama
took office, 261,000 fewer exist. Tax cuts for the rich, banker bailouts,
other corporate handouts, and permanent imperial wars come at the expense of
popular needs gone begging.
Half the country is impoverished or bordering on it because both parties
planned it that way. Obama's no less ruthless and heartless than Romney. He
just hides it better.
Nation editors claim Democrats made a good start toward financial reform.
Wall Street wrote the legislation. It benefits them. Grand theft remains
policy. Neither party curbs it. Crooks when they're caught aren't punished.
Since crisis conditions emerged in fall 2007, no high-level corporate
official faced prosecution. They're free to keep stealing because who'll
stop them. The Libor scandal alone revealed government/banker complicity.
Nothing changed. The dirty game continues. It's institutionalized. Both
parties endorse it without saying so. Nation editors pretend Democrats are
different. They call Republicans liars.
They claim Obama's "telling the truth." Doing so reveals an agenda
supporting his, and the worst of what political Washington represents.
On September 6, Nation's John Nichols headlined "Obama Manufactures an
Argument for His Re-election," saying:
He stands in stark contrast to "Romney's empty rhetoric." His convention
speech "touched the important themes" for reelection. He "made the case for
himself as a job creator."
In all respects, he's a destroyer, not a creator. He's a demagogic con man
dressed up in well-scripted political mumbo jumbo. His speech was
duplicitous from start to finish. Reality faced by millions of households
was ignored.
Working people have no friend in Obama. He's gone all out against them. He
wage war on labor rights. He's dismissive of popular needs. Apologists
claiming he's different than Romney accept illusions about a heartless,
soulless president.
Both parties represent two wings of money power. Privilege matters, not
people needs.
"Obama talked the talk Thursday night," said Nichols. He made promises he'll
likely keep. So far he broke every major one made. Nichols thinks, or
perhaps hopes, this time is different.
He told voters they have to "choose between two different paths for
America." He was right, said Nichols. "The choice between an Obama-Biden
future and a Romney-Ryan (one) is stark."
"His speech was a start." He has to show he "really does worry more about
Main Street than Wall Street." He's done mirror opposite.
Give him another four years and he'll outdo the worst of what he's done so
far. What does he have to lose? Faux progressives support whatever he does.
Why anyone believes them who knows.
A Final Comment
On war and peace issues, Obama and Romney are in lockstep. Obama's softer
rhetoric belies his belligerence. Romney is blunter. He supports direct
intervention against Syria.
He calls Iran an existential threat to Israel. Its ballistic missile
capability endangers Europe and eventually America. It's provoking a
regional arms race. It's creating "a nightmarish cascade of nuclear tensions
in the world's most volatile region."
He accused Iran of sponsoring international terrorism. He calls doing so
"terrifying." As president, he says, he'll "end Iran's pursuit of a nuclear
weapon, eliminate the threat of Iranian nuclear terrorism against the United
States and our allies, and prevent nuclear proliferation across the region."
Iran must understand that "a military option to deal with (its) nuclear
program remains on the table. This message" has to be more than tough words.
Actions must follow.
Romney wants tougher sanctions, absolute support for Israel, and war if
other policies fail.
He and Obama know no Iranian threat exists. America, by its presence, and
Israel are the only nuclear armed and dangerous regional countries. They're
the only regional menaces. Their history reflects belligerence.
Iran endorses peace, not war. So does Syria. Neither nation shows hostile
intent toward anyone. Whether Obama's reelected or Romney succeeds him,
expect more regional war than already. Doing so risks potential catastrophic
consequences. Cooler heads understand what neither candidate publicly admits
or implies.
Expect nightmarish conditions ahead exceeding the worst of what's already
happened. At issue is whether humanity can survive. There's no guarantee.
Thé Mulindwas Communication Group
"With Yoweri Museveni and Dr. Kiiza Besigye Uganda is in anarchy"
Kuungana Mulindwa Mawasiliano Kikundi
"Pamoja na Yoweri Museveni na Dk. Kiiza Besigye Uganda ni katika machafuko"
_______________________________________________
Ugandanet mailing list
[email protected]
http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet
UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/
All Archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including
attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way.
---------------------------------------
