[Peace-discuss] Why we should vote (& much more) against Romney

[Carl G. Estabrook]

We should be acquiescent in Obama's child-killing because his opponent might do things we wouldn't like?

That logic would support any repressive regime in the world.

We should be working to reverse the murderous policies of this & the succeeding administration - which will remain essentially the same, regardless of who is president, in the absence of major public opposition to them.  

Regarding Obama as the champion of the 95% (to whom you condescend) looks like the result of willful ignorance. --CGE


On Oct 25, 2012, at 12:56 AM, Jenifer Cartwright <jencart13 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Y're kidding, right??? Roe v Wade; food stamps; Medicare & Medicaid; Obamacare; tax breaks for the wealthy; Pell grants; unions, minimum wage, etc etc... Oh, and Supreme Court appointee(s) -- you all loved citizens United, right?? And if you think Obama has negatives when it comes to esp foreign affairs, just wait'll ya see the Repubs at the helm.. Yeah, nothing that will impact the lives of YOU guys, so go ahead and vote for the candidate you "like" and tough shit for the 95% who will be very impacted (hopefully enuff of them are smart enuff to vote sensibly).
> 
> --- On Wed, 10/24/12, David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> From: David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Why we should vote (& much more) against Obama
> To: "C. G. Estabrook" <cge at shout.net>
> Cc: "peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> Date: Wednesday, October 24, 2012, 3:50 PM
> 
> Progressives (sic) are expected to vote for Obama on the basis that he is better on "domestic policy" and no worse on "foreign policy," the distinction itself being of an ideological nature, as reflected in Reich's "class warrior" and "cold warrior." All of these specious distinctions--between the parties, candidates, policies, and wars--need to be deconstructed. We were reminded this week that the last real distinction among presidential candidates and policies was in 1972; there is an argument to be made that McGovern's candidacy was undermined not least by Democratic party leadership.
> 
> 
> From: C. G. Estabrook <cge at shout.net>
> To: Peace-discuss List <Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> 
> Cc: sf-core <sf-core at yahoogroups.com>; occupycu <occupyCU at lists.chambana.net> 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 12:18 PM
> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Why we should vote (& much more) against Obama
> 
> This morning brings a pro-Obama piece from a former head of the Mossad (NYT 10/24) - showing that, against Republican charges, Obama's down with the fanatical government of Israel - and this shocking encomium from one of his intellectual bodyguards, Bobby Reich: 
> 
> "...I kept wishing Obama would take more credit for one of the most successful foreign policies of any administration in decades: not only finding and killing Osama bin Laden but also ridding the world of Libya’s Gaddafi without getting drawn into a war, imposing extraordinary economic hardship on Iran, isolating Syria..." <http://www.nationofchange.org/obama-commander-chief-romney-banal-bully-1351087653>.
> 
> Translation: "success" means 
> 
> (1) assassination ("multiply violating elementary norms of international law," as Chomsky said); 
> 
> (2) illegal war (contrary to the War Powers Act, as pointed out in a court suit by Congress members, including our own);
> 
> (3) immoral sanctions (similar to those imposed by Clinton on Iraq, which admittedly killed a half million children); and
> 
> (4) imposing civil war on an Iranian ally in association with Salafists (as the Carter administration did in Afghanistan)...   
>  
> It's enough to make one vote for Romney - if he didn't propose simply more of the same. 
> 
> Instead, it shows that the reversal of the shameful Obama military (and economic) polices will have to come extra-parliamentarily, like civil rights and anti-Vietnam war victories. 
> 
> Elections are a distraction - and meant to be, by the 1%. 
> 
> --CGE