The presidential election is less than 7 weeks away. So in a nutshell, here's a short capsulation of the latest rumblings coming from the "supposed" alternatives of the two main parties:
- Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee who seems to know no bounds when it comes to saying what ever it is he thinks his audience wants to hear. Over the weekend the "Mittster" speaking before an audience of well heeled donors at a closed door fund raiser, captured on video and released by "Mother Jones" magazine was heard to say, "There are 47% of the people who are dependent on government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, you name it. That's an entitlement and the government should give it to them". And further without missing a beat he said, "My job is not worry about these people." When his campaign was asked to comment on these remarks spoken at the fundraiser, his spokeswoman, Gail Gitcho said, "Mitt Romney wants to help all Americans struggling in the Obama economy." Hmm? Is there a contradiction here or what?
- Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee running for re-election was last seen campaigning in Ohio, who according to his aides was keeping a close eye on the developments in the Arab and Muslim world in light of the protests and anti-Americanism that has flared after the release of the video that mocks and denigrates the Prophet Mohammad. So from his aides we get this, "We're trying to hit the right tone on the stump." The "right tone"?! What is that supposed to mean? Is the president the leader of this country or is he a band leader? From Obama himself we get, "Events of the past week are evidence of the dangers in the world. We can't just pull back. We've got to stay engaged and involved in our security". More on this shortly.
As to Romney, what can one believe when in one instance his words essentially dismiss half the American population as victims and worthless and then through a spokeswoman she says, "Mitt Romney wants to help all Americans". To put it mildly, it's simply mindboggling that this chameleon of a man is the nominee of one of the two major parties running for president and will garner millions of votes if not the presidency itself in November.
Then there's President Obama running for re-election as the other "supposed" alternative who has jettisoned his 2008 campaign theme of "Change you can believe in" in favor of the candidate running on the unspoken but definite premise marked by this question, "Would you rather have Romney as President?"
Of course Obama isn't going to focus on the domestic issues his administration inadequately dealt with in his first term i.e. the stagnant economy, unemployment, foreclosures, bankruptcy or student debt that remain unacceptably high or on his expanding drone warfare, the killing of innocents or for that matter his being the "assassinator in chief" who alone decides who is to be targeted for assassination, including American citizens. Or the president who said, "we can't look back and must move ahead" refusing to hold accountable members of the previous administration that authorized torture, indefinite detention, extraordinary rendition and suspended habeas corpus when he himself is conducting essentially the same policy as his predecessor. All these Constitutional suspect (illegal?) acts conducted by this supposed Constitutional scholar and law professor.
So in this dystopia of electoral politics we have in this country, these two stooges are supposed to represent the only "alternatives" for the American people to choose to lead this country.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).