We can evaluate Obama's track record using
statistics and apply them to unemployment, GNP, military spending and inflation
(or deflation). This is probably how the GOP will try to portray his
presidency. It's an effective strategy mainly because many economic indicators
were better when he took office then they are today. It's easy to point to statistics
and convince people, based on empirical evidence, that this nation
was in better shape when George W. Bush was President. In fact, it's so easy to
manipulate numbers, that even a brain-dead candidate like Romney could "prove" that things
have undoubtedly gone downhill since Obama took office.
There is no doubt that the Republicans will do their
level best to keep Obama's track record front and center. I believe that the
GOP will consistently present charts and graphs, all the while whining about
"free trade and budget deficits". The prime motivator for this is
because this is the only thing they have to run on.
It would be an un"MITT"tigated
nightmare if they chose to run on Romney's track record as Governor of Massachusetts.
The Democrats will undoubtedly use their own graphs and statistics to portray
Gov. Romney as a Governor presiding over a colossal economic failure. There is plenty of
cannon-fodder for ensuring that both candidates, by the end of this
Presidential race, will have lost any luster that they had at the beginning of
their campaigns.
While both corporate-candidates will be throwing
numbers and percentages around until November, I believe that this time would
be better spent examining all of the
candidates. Not on their economic track record alone, but on their qualifications
for holding office, especially the office of President. This means examining everything they have done, and everything
they have failed to do, in
their political careers and in their lives.
I would like at this time, to include the candidate
from the Justice Party ,
former Mayor of Salt Lake City, Rocky Anderson. Evaluating the qualifications
of a Presidential
Candidate should be an in-depth and comprehensive vetting process.
Using graphs and flow charts, along with power-point presentations and ringing
endorsements, is just not enough to be able match the candidate to the job. In
fact, having only two major political parties to represent over 350 million
people with diverse views on everything from economic policies to social
activism is patently ridiculous.
Only two points of view shared between 350 million
people is mind-boggling, especially when you consider that the two main parties
are both controlled by corporate money and don't operate in the American
people's best interests. They operate in their corporate benefactors' best
interests. This is fact, not fiction. Money decides the parameters of any
American political debate today. While this has always been the case, it's been
especially true since the early 70's. Since the Supreme Court decision on
Citizen United, corporate political funds will undoubtedly run the discourse in
American politics until this decision is overturned by a constitutional
amendment.
This state of affairs should be repugnant to anyone
that has a modicum of commonsense. No matter who wins this presidential race,
all American citizen's lose. This country is firmly in the grip of two
political parties that depend on corporate funding to win elections. The
Democrats will appeal to their base and claim that their party represents the
much-touted but fast-disappearing "middle-class". In reality, any
thinking person must reject that view. To believe in that would mean that the Democrats will work just as
hard to advance the average citizen's point of view over the wishes of the
corporate sector that provides the lion's share of their campaign funding.
All of this means that the individual American citizen,
unless they provide millions of dollars to either party, has no real
representation in the White House or in Congress. The days of "one-man (or
woman) one vote" are gone. This isn't something that either candidate will
focus on. To do so would mean that corporate America will support the candidate
that accepts the status quo. It would mean political suicide for the candidate
that rejects it. Maybe, if we are extremely fortunate after this election,
brave politicians from the corporate-controlled political parties will fight to
change this situation.
We have another alternative that doesn't rely on the
hope that these corporately funded politicians will develop a conscience. We
can elect someone that rejects corporate funding of political campaigns. Still, after
the debacle in Wisconsin and the demonstration of what corporate funding can
do, I don't see any evidence of conscience-based politicians emerging from either major
political party. The only viable solution for getting corporate money out of
politics is to elect someone that rejects this scenario, and the only one that
has done this is Rocky Anderson.
Anyone that claims that it is impossible to elect a
third-party candidate to the presidency should reconsider that claim in light
of the new political scenario playing out across the nation. One undeniable
fact is that Americans are extremely angry with both major political parties.
Both corporately controlled political parties should be extremely nervous right
now. The backlash from the Citizen's
United ruling by the Supreme
Court is still an unknown factor. There
is still five months before Americans go to the polls and elect a president.
I don't see either corporately controlled political
party refraining from using the Citizen United ruling as a campaign issue. They
may attempt to refrain from doing so in the early days of campaigning, but once
things start to look bad for either party, the ruling will become a central
issue with both parties claiming that they represent the average citizen.
There is no doubt in my mind that both candidates
will try to represent themselves as the champion of the
"middle-class". Once they do this, Americans will be exposed to what
the Citizen United ruling really means. When the campaigns of both parties get
down and dirty, nothing will be off the table. The more they claim to represent
the majority of Americans in the "Middle-Class", the more Americans
will question their relevance compared to those that represent corporate
America.
This is when Americans will decide to look around
for an alternative. They will realize that the only real alternative is a
candidate that doesn't speak out of both sides of his mouth. This is when Americans
will be guided to look at which party is
supporting the corporate agenda. What they will find of course, is that both
major political parties are funded by corporate America and corporately
controlled PAC's.
Most Americans realize that we have sold much of our
manufacturing sector to countries overseas that provide cheap labor. Americans
also realize that both political parties presided over this. When it comes to
the financial sector's bail-outs, most Americans have seen little improvement
in their financial situation, even though Bush and Obama handed out trillions
of dollars to the financial sector. Now
they are seeing both political parties pointing their fingers at each other.
The Republicans are claiming that the reason we are
in dire straits is because of the budget deficits and uncontrolled spending by
the Federal government. They are also claiming that oversight and Federal
regulations are strangling our economy. Meanwhile, Americans haven't forgotten
that the unregulated financial sector was responsible for the derivative
debacle, and they are seeing this same unregulated economic sector still
involved with this type of "casino economics".
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
