[Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] Fwd: USA Midterm Elections-Past and Present' by Jack Rasmus, teleSUR English, October 27, 2014

[C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss]

What's so wrong with the Democrats' 'losing' the Senate? It's objectionable to say that it's theirs to lose. 

The Democratic party was given control of the Congress in 2006 specifically to being an end to the US war in the Mideast, as the party recognized at the time.

They've spent the years since expanding the war and pretending to the US populace that they aren't. Obama has now attacked eight (predominantly Muslim) countries (not, of course, because they are Muslim); Bush Jr. only managed six. Obama is as he says "really good at killing people." ("Didn't know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.") Obama's talent is to get the US populace not to notice the thousands he's killed with drones alone and the wars he's expanded; he knows that he risks the sort of rejection that drove Johnson and Nixon from office - particularly as the economy continues to sour (except for the richest Americans, for whom Obama is doing very well indeed).

Republicans in control of both houses of Congress may in fact make it easier to oppose Obama's military and economic policies. (Sen. Rand Paul, e.g., is thinking hard about how he might mobilize opposition to Obama's military and economic polices to make himself president, as he demonstrated in a speech last Monday night. And the vicious Hillary Clinton is helping him to do so - see Doug Henwood's article in the current Harper's.)

I can see only one major drawback to the Republicans' controlling the Senate: it will help Obama to achieve his neoliberal trade pacts. Opposition to 'fast track' authority for Obama to put his awful Pacifica and Atlantic trade agreements in place comes in fact from the Democrats - notably Harry Reid in the Senate - not from Republicans. They're actually more likely to support these overwhelming windfalls for the 1% - who, after all, Obama has been working for all along. 

--CGE    

On Oct 28, 2014, at 6:12 PM, David Johnson via OccupyCU <occupycu at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

> This time voter response could be even worse, given the overlay of other, additional legitimate grievances by large voter constituencies that previously voted for Democrats. 
> A close look at the 2012 elections shows that Obama won re-election largely because of Hispanic, student youth, and union labor votes delivered him the key states that made the difference in his U.S. electoral college vote results. In addition to the continuing economic legacies of 2010, these key constituencies now have additional grievances with the Democrats.
> 
> Millions of Latino immigrants and Hispanics who had high hopes that Democrats and Obama would address their needs and grievances no longer believe Democrats and Obama can deliver a solution. Millions of students with a combined more than $1 trillion in loan debt, who are now paying tens of billions a year in excess above-market interest to the U.S. government no longer believe meaningful debt relief is possible, even though it could with a mere stroke of Obama’s pen.
> 
> And union workers who delivered key Midwest states to Democrats and Obama in 2012, and have received virtually nothing from Obama since 2008 in return (except perhaps the very real prospect of losing their negotiated health benefits in the next few years due to the Obamacare health act) have seen the Obama administration reject their unions’ every appeal for assistance and reconsideration since 2012. 
> 
> It’s not that these key constituencies will vote Republican. It’s that they will likely not vote Democrat. They will vote with ‘the seat of their pants’, as they say, and stay home. And that means the loss of the Senate for Democrats next week.
> 
> 
> <Mail Attachment.png>teleSUR English
> 
> USA Midterm Elections: Past and Present
> 
> By Jack Rasmus
> 
> Published 27 October 2014
> <Mail Attachment.jpeg>

[...]