FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Klare writes: "When it comes to international energy politics, however, it is not Bush but his vice president, Dick Cheney, who has been providing the role model for the president."

President Barack Obama shakes hands with president George W. Bush as vice-president Dick Cheney looks on during Obama's inauguration as the 44th President of the United States of America January 20, 2009. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
President Barack Obama shakes hands with president George W. Bush as vice-president Dick Cheney looks on during Obama's inauguration as the 44th President of the United States of America January 20, 2009. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)



Cheney's Ghost in the Obama Administration

By Michael T. Klare, TomDispatch

22 June 12

 

s details of his administration’s global war against terrorists, insurgents, and hostile warlords have become more widely known - a war that involves a mélange of drone attacks, covert operations, and presidentially selected assassinations - President Obama has been compared to President George W. Bush in his appetite for military action.  “As shown through his stepped-up drone campaign,” Aaron David Miller, an advisor to six secretaries of state, wrote at Foreign Policy, “Barack Obama has become George W. Bush on steroids.”

When it comes to international energy politics, however, it is not Bush but his vice president, Dick Cheney, who has been providing the role model for the president.  As recent events have demonstrated, Obama’s energy policies globally bear an eerie likeness to Cheney’s, especially in the way he has engaged in the geopolitics of oil as part of an American global struggle for future dominance among the major powers.

More than any of the other top officials of the Bush administration - many with oil-company backgrounds - Cheney focused on the role of energy in global power politics.  From 1995 to 2000, he served as chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Halliburton, a major supplier of services to the oil industry.  Soon after taking office as vice president he was asked by Bush to devise a new national energy strategy that has largely governed U.S. policy ever since.

Early on, Cheney concluded that the global supply of energy was not growing fast enough to satisfy rising world demand, and that securing control over the world’s remaining oil and natural gas supplies would therefore be an essential task for any state seeking to acquire or retain a paramount position globally.  He similarly grasped that a nation’s rise to prominence could be thwarted by being denied access to essential energy supplies.  As coal was to the architects of the British empire, oil was for Cheney - a critical resource over which it would sometimes be necessary to go to war.

More than any of his peers, Cheney articulated such views on the importance of energy to national wealth and power.  “Oil is unique in that it is so strategic in nature,” he told an audience at an industry conference in London in 1999. “We are not talking about soapflakes or leisurewear here.  Energy is truly fundamental to the world’s economy.  The Gulf War was a reflection of that reality.”

Cheney’s reference to the 1990-1991 Gulf War is particularly revealing.  During that conflict, he was the secretary of defense and so supervised the American war effort.  But while his boss, President George H.W. Bush, played down the role of oil in the fight against Iraq, Cheney made no secret of his belief that energy geopolitics lay at the heart of the matter.  “Once [Iraqi autocrat Saddam Hussein] acquired Kuwait and deployed an army as large as the one he possesses,” Cheney told the Senate Armed Services Committee when asked to justify the administration’s decision to intervene, “he was clearly in a position to be able to dictate the future of worldwide energy policy, and that gave him a stranglehold on our economy.”

This would be exactly the message he delivered in 2002, as the second President Bush girded himself for the invasion of Iraq.  Were Saddam Hussein successful in acquiring weapons of mass destruction, Cheney told a group of veterans that August 25th, “[he] could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East [and] take control of a great portion of the world’s energy supplies.”

For Cheney, the geopolitics of oil lay at the core of international relations, largely determining the rise and fall of nations.  From this, it followed that any steps, including war and environmental devastation, were justified so long as they enhanced America’s power at the expense of its rivals.

Cheney’s World

Through his speeches, Congressional testimony, and actions in office, it is possible to reconstruct the geopolitical blueprint that Cheney followed in his career as a top White House strategist - a blueprint that President Obama, eerily enough, now appears to be implementing, despite the many risks involved.

That blueprint consists of four key features:

1. Promote domestic oil and gas production at any cost to reduce America’s dependence on unfriendly foreign suppliers, thereby increasing Washington's freedom of action.

2. Keep control over the oil flow from the Persian Gulf (even if the U.S. gets an ever-diminishing share of its own oil supplies from the region) in order to retain an “economic stranglehold” over other major oil importers.

3. Dominate the sea lanes of Asia, so as to control the flow of oil and other raw materials to America’s potential economic rivals, China and Japan.

4. Promote energy “diversification” in Europe, especially through increased reliance on oil and natural gas supplies from the former Soviet republics of the Caspian Sea basin, in order to reduce Europe’s heavy dependence on Russian oil and gas, along with the political influence this brings Moscow.

The first objective, increased reliance on domestic oil and gas, was highlighted in National Energy Policy, the energy strategy Cheney devised for the president in May 2001 in close consultation with representatives of the oil giants.  Although mostly known for its advocacy of increased drilling on federal lands, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Cheney Report (as it came to be known) largely focused on the threat of growing U.S. dependence on foreign oil suppliers and the need to achieve greater “energy security” through a damn-the-torpedoes-full-speed-ahead program of accelerated exploitation of domestic energy supplies.

“A primary goal of the National Energy Policy is to add supply from diverse sources,” the report declared.  “This means domestic oil, gas, and coal.  It also means hydropower and nuclear power.”  The plan also called for a concerted drive to increase U.S. reliance on friendly sources of energy in the Western hemisphere, especially Brazil, Canada, and Mexico.

The second objective, control over the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf, was, for Cheney, the principal reason for both the First Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.  Although before that invasion, the president and other top officials focused on Saddam Hussein’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, his human rights record, and the need to bring democracy to Iraq, Cheney never wavered in his belief that the basic goal was to ensure that Washington would control the Middle Eastern oil jugular.

After Saddam’s ouster and the occupation of Iraq began, Cheney was especially outspoken in his insistence that neighboring Iran be prevented, by force of arms if need be, from challenging American preeminence in the Gulf.  “We’ll keep the sea lanes open,” he declared from the deck of an aircraft carrier during maneuvers off the coast of Iran in May 2007.  “We’ll stand with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.”

Cheney also focused in a major way on ensuring control over the sea lanes from the Strait of Hormuz, at the mouth of the Persian Gulf (out of which 35% of the world’s tradable oil flows each day) across the Indian Ocean, through the Straits of Malacca, and into the South and East China Seas.  To this day, these maritime corridors remain essential for the economic survival of China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, bringing oil and other raw materials to their industries and carrying manufactured goods to their markets abroad.  By maintaining U.S. control over these vital conduits, Cheney sought to guarantee the loyalty of America’s key Asian allies and constrain the rise of China.  In pursuit of these classic geopolitical objectives, he pushed for an enhanced U.S. naval presence in the Asia-Pacific region and the establishment of a network of military alliances linking Japan, Australia, and India, all aimed at containing China.

Finally, Cheney sought to rein in America’s other major great-power rival, Russia.  While his boss, George W. Bush, spoke of the potential for cooperation with Moscow, Cheney, still an energy cold warrior, viewed Russia as a geopolitical competitor and sought every opportunity to diminish its power and influence.  He particularly feared that Europe’s growing dependence on Russian natural gas could undermine its resolve to resist aggressive Russian moves in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus.

To counter this trend, Cheney tried to persuade the Europeans to get more of their energy from the Caspian Sea basin by building new pipelines to that region via Georgia and Turkey.  The idea was to bypass Russia by persuading Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan to export their gas through these conduits, not those owned by Gazprom, the Russian state-controlled monopoly.  When Georgia came under attack from Russian forces in August 2008, after Georgian troops shelled the pro-Moscow enclave of South Ossetia, Cheney was the first senior U.S. official to visit Tbilisi, bringing a promise of $1 billion in reconstruction assistance, as well as an offer of fast-track entry into NATO.  France and Germany blocked the move, fearing Moscow might respond with actions that could destabilize Europe.

Obama as Cheney

This four-part geopolitical blueprint, relentlessly pursued by Cheney while vice president, is now being implemented in every respect by President Obama.

When it comes to the pursuit of enhanced energy independence, Obama has embraced the ultra-nationalistic orientation of the 2001 Cheney report, with its call for increased reliance on domestic and Western Hemisphere oil and natural gas - no matter the dangers of drilling in environmentally fragile offshore areas or the use of hazardous techniques like hydro-fracking.  In recent speeches, he has boasted of his administration’s efforts to facilitate increased oil and gas drilling at home and promised to speed drilling in new locations, including offshore Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.

“Over the last three years,” he boasted in his January State of the Union address, “we’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I’m directing my administration to open more than 75% of our potential offshore oil and gas resources.  Right now - right now - American oil production is the highest that it’s been in eight years… Not only that - last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past 16 years.”  He spoke with particular enthusiasm about the extraction of natural gas via fracking from shale deposits: “We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years.  And my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy.”

Obama has also voiced his desire to increase U.S. reliance on Western Hemisphere energy, thereby diminishing its dependence on unreliable and unfriendly suppliers in the Middle East and Africa.  In March 2011, with the Arab Spring gaining momentum, he traveled to Brazil for five days of trade talks, a geopolitical energy pivot noted at the time.  In the eyes of many observers, Obama’s focus on Brazil was inextricably linked to that country’s emergence as a major oil producer, thanks to new discoveries in the “pre-salt” fields off its coast in the depths of the Atlantic Ocean, discoveries that could help the U.S. wean itself off Middle Eastern oil but could also turn out to be pollution nightmares.  Although environmentalists have warned of the risks of drilling in the pre-salt fields, where a Deepwater Horizon-like blowout is an ever-present danger, Obama has made no secret of his geopolitical priorities. “By some estimates, the oil you recently discovered off the shores of Brazil could amount to twice the reserves we have in the United States,” he told Brazilian business leaders in that country’s capital. “When you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers.  At a time when we’ve been reminded how easily instability in other parts of the world can affect the price of oil, the United States could not be happier with the potential for a new, stable source of energy.”

At the same time, Obama has made it clear that the U.S. will retain its role as the ultimate guardian of the Persian Gulf sea lanes.  Even while trumpeting the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq, he has insisted that the United States will bolster its air, naval, and special operations forces in the Gulf region, so as to remain the preeminent military power there.  “Back to the future,” is how Major General Karl R. Horst, chief of staff of the U.S. Central Command, described the new posture, referring to a time before the Iraq War when the U.S. exercised dominance in the region mainly through its air and naval superiority.

While less conspicuous than “boots on the ground,” the expanded air and naval presence will be kept strong enough to overpower any conceivable adversary.  “We will have a robust continuing presence throughout the region,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared last October.  Such a build-up has in fact been accentuated, in preparation either for a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, should Obama conclude that negotiations to curb Iranian enrichment activities have reached a dead end, or to clear the Strait of Hormuz, if the Iranians carry out threats to block oil shipping there in retaliation for the even harsher economic sanctions due to be imposed after July 1st.

Like Cheney, Obama also seeks to ensure U.S. control over the vital sea lanes extending from the Strait of Hormuz to the South China Sea.  This is, in fact, the heart of Obama’s much publicized policy “pivot” to Asia and his new military doctrine, first revealed in a speech to the Australian Parliament on November 17th.  “As we plan and budget for the future,” he declared, “we will allocate the resources necessary to maintain our strong military presence in this region.”  A major priority of this effort, he indicated, would be enhanced “maritime security,” especially in the South China Sea.

Central to the Obama plan - like that advanced by Dick Cheney in 2007 - is the construction of a network of bases and alliances encircling China, the globe’s rising power, in an arc stretching from Japan and South Korea in the north to Australia, Vietnam, and the Philippines in the southeast and thence to India in the southwest.  When describing this effort in Canberra, Obama revealed that he had just concluded an agreement with the Australian government to establish a new U.S. military basing facility at Darwin on the country’s northern coast, near the South China Sea.  He also spoke of the ultimate goal of U.S. geopolitics: a region-embracing coalition of anti-Chinese states that would include India.  “We see America’s enhanced presence across Southeast Asia,” both in growing ties with local powers like Australia and “in our welcome of India as it ‘looks east’ and plays a larger role as an Asian power.”

As anyone who follows Asian affairs is aware, a strategy aimed at encircling China - especially one intended to incorporate India into America’s existing Asian alliance system - is certain to produce alarm and pushback from Beijing.  “I don’t think they’re going to be very happy,” said Mark Valencia, a senior researcher at the National Bureau of Asian Research, speaking of China’s reaction.  “I’m not optimistic in the long run as to how this is going to wind up.”

Finally, Obama has followed in Cheney’s footsteps in his efforts to reduce Russia’s influence in Europe and Central Asia by promoting the construction of new oil and gas pipelines from the Caspian via Georgia and Turkey to Europe.  On June 5th, at the Caspian Oil and Gas Conference in Baku, President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan read a message from Obama promising Washington’s support for a proposed Trans-Anatolia gas pipeline, a conduit designed to carry natural gas from Azerbaijan across Georgia and Turkey to Europe - bypassing Russia, naturally.  At the same time, Secretary of State Clinton traveled to Georgia, just as Cheney had, to reaffirm U.S. support and offer increased U.S. military aid.  As during the Bush-Cheney era, these moves are bound to be seen in Moscow as part of a calculated drive to lessen Russia’s influence in the region - and so are certain to elicit a hostile response.

In virtually every respect, then, when it comes to energy geopolitics the Obama administration continues to carry out the strategic blueprint pioneered by Dick Cheney during the two Bush administrations.  What explains this surprising behavior?  Assuming that it doesn’t represent a literal effort to replicate Cheney’s thinking - and there’s no evidence of that - it clearly represents the triumph of imperial geopolitics (and hidebound thinking) over ideology, principle, or even simple openness to new ideas.

When you get two figures as different as Obama and Cheney pursuing the same pathways in the world - and the first time around was anything but a success - it’s a sign of just how closed and airless the world of Washington really has become.  At a time when most Americans are weary of grand ideological crusades, the pursuit of what looks like simple national self-interest - in the form of assured energy supplies - may appear far more attractive as a rationale for military and political involvement abroad.

In addition, Obama and his advisers are no doubt influenced by talk of a new “golden age” of North American oil and gas, made possible by the exploitation of shale deposits and other unconventional - and often dirty - energy resources.  According to projections given by the Department of Energy, U.S. reliance on imported energy is likely to decline in the years ahead (though there is a domestic price to be paid for such “independence”), while China’s will only rise - a seeming geopolitical advantage for the United States that Obama appears to relish.

It is easy enough to grasp the appeal of such energy geopolitics for White House strategists, especially given the woeful state of the U.S. economy and the declining utility of other instruments of state power.  And if you are prepared to overlook the growing environmental risks of reliance on offshore oil, shale gas, and other unconventional forms of energy, rising U.S. energy output conveys certain geopolitical advantages.  But as history suggests, engaging in aggressive global geopolitical confrontations with other determined, well-armed players usually leads to friction, crisis, war, and disaster.

In this regard, Cheney’s geopolitical maneuvering led us into two costly Middle Eastern wars while heightening tensions with both China and Russia.  President Obama claims he seeks to build a more peaceful world, but copying the Cheney energy blueprint is bound to produce the exact opposite.

Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, a TomDispatch regular, and the author most recently of The Race for What’s Left: The Global Scramble for the World’s Last Resources (Metropolitan Books).

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+19 # Michael_K 2012-06-22 12:19
"As recent events have demonstrated, Obama’s energy policies globally bear an eerie likeness to Cheney’s, especially in the way he has engaged in the geopolitics of oil as part of an American global struggle for future dominance among the major powers."

I've been killing myself telling you guys this. Obama is continuing and often building up on Cheney's crimes, across the board. And - this is 100% true - turns out they're distant cousins. Not so distant that the wickedness gene didn't get transmitted, obviously.
 
 
+18 # Michael_K 2012-06-22 13:06
Now, we learn the United States government is planning a 13-year propaganda project to clean up the image of the Vietnam War in the minds of Americans. It’s called The Vietnam War Commemoration Project. President Obama officially launched the project on Memorial Day with a speech at the Vietnam Wall in Washington. The Project was established by Section 598 of the 604-page National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2008. It budgets $5 million a year.

http://www.nationofchange.org/vietnam-war-and-struggle-truth-1340380136

What a heinous piece of... Argh! I can't stand it, there's no plumbing the depth of this man's depravity.
 
 
-3 # JCM 2012-06-22 20:07
And what do you think Romney would do?
 
 
+8 # JSRaleigh 2012-06-23 11:08
A lot worse.

But that doesn't justify not holding Obama accountable.
 
 
+8 # Glen 2012-06-23 05:02
It would be satisfying to add a long list of information to your post, Michael, but resist I must. You have said it well and presented pertinent information to worry over, and worry we should.

It would also be satisfying to add a long list of insults regarding Cheney and all those connected to him.
 
 
+7 # John Locke 2012-06-23 05:54
Michael_K: Thank you Michael, I have also, and watched the deniers bury their heads in the sand.

The Liar in Chief appears to be Obama who promised us change we can believe in!

We do not have elections in the US we have the appearance of elections as there is an illusion of a two party system, but both are controlled by the same money and the real agenda with both is always the same.

I hope the more that comes out, and it will, will make the deniers like Barbara and her ilk wake up before there is NO saving what little of our republic remains...
 
 
+4 # paulrevere 2012-06-23 09:02
Clearly dileneated, as usual, John Locke.

I am reminded of the economic and fear pressures people are constantly under and how those pressures serve the 'controllers' so well.

Worry about money...be 'feared' about terrorism/ists. ..be deeply 'feared' about heaven and hell...be 'feared' about rape in the parking lot...be 'feared' about drug dealers seducing your children...be 'feared' about comtaminated food and water.

When WETHEPEOPLE are on our heels 24/7/365, there is no room for clear thinking.
 
 
+7 # Glen 2012-06-23 06:40
Michael, you have been persistent in your efforts, and done a better job of verifying the facts concerning Obama's agenda and how he is part of the overall group and plans. tigerlille, below, also posts pertinent information. It is certainly the case that many citizens have refused to accept how much the government has changed over the last forty years, and that the usual suspects are now all of them.
 
 
+19 # Activista 2012-06-22 15:59
Americans must recognize that the Republicans x Democrats and democratic elections are not valid paradigms anymore.
It is AIPAC money and politician greed against people of the United States.
 
 
+13 # tigerlille 2012-06-22 22:27
The government has replicated the Vietnam war, a national tragedy, in the middle east, except that now it is the Navy Seals running around with their covert hit lists instead of the Special Forces (who originally trained the Navy Seals). Remember when Bush first invaded Afghanistan? That's when they called up all these old and/or retired Vietnam Vets to teach the troops how the game is played. A lot of these guys were also veterans of Afghanistan when the U.S. wasn't officially there. These are the guys that trained bin Laden. A friend of mine who was there said that he warned the brass that bin Laden was a loose cannonball several times, but of course ignored. I think these issues have been obvious to a lot of RSN readers for awhile, but having been a teenager in the 60's, and having participated in the peace movement, I have foundlife very surreal these past 20 years. We thought we accomlished something but evidently it meant nothing, nothing at all. How an entire country of adults can watch recent history repeat it's self without being particularly troubled is beyond me. The main difference between Vietnam and the current conflict is that the development of weapons technology has greatly reduced the # of casualties. But our troops are still cannon fodder.

We truly are a nation of morons. What is dumbfounding are the liberal Obama fans/apologists . Sleepwalkers. They stare evil head on and don't see it.
 
 
+4 # paulrevere 2012-06-23 09:25
"I have found life very surreal these past 20 years"...me too!

I was a recipient of the privilege of depositing four years of my very young life into the bank of politically corrupt military servitude...joi n or be drafted and die like a number of my classmate/frien ds had already done...my heart is with you Dee, Mike, Lou, Boyd et al.

Killing and being killed for what just about every time turns out to be 'controller' greed, arrogance and sociopathic psychology has just got to STOP!!
 
 
+11 # RMDC 2012-06-23 05:34
Good article. This is the chief problem with Obama. He ran as a progressive but now we see him as a true blue neo-con.

I agree with the comment that Obama is Bush on steroids. The covert wars he has launched in Africa will go down in history right beside King Leopold's Congo Free State which also used mercenaries do depopulate the Congo and rob it of natural resources.

The choice between Romney and Obama is getting worse by the day. Neither one has the personal qualities to be president of anything. There's no honesty in either one. They are quite happy to commit outright murder in order to pursue their neo-con vision of the world.
 
 
+10 # RMDC 2012-06-23 05:56
The opposite of the Dick Cheney vision would be to wean the US off of oil dependence. It would be a comprehensive campaign to develop renewable energy sources over the next 20 years. Every year, the US would use less and less oil. There would be more jobs in renewable energy production.

But Obama has not chosen this path. The World War for the control of diminishing oil supplies is just insane. Other developed nations are taking the renewable enery path -- Germany, China, Japan. In 20 years, the US will be left with a massive military infrastructure that controls every square inch of the earth and still there will be no (or not enough) oil. Meanwhile the rest of the world will be quite happy using solar, wind, geotherman, tidal, and other forms of energy.

Not only are Cheney and his boy Obama criminal and vicious to the core, willing to kill for oil, they are also just simply stupid. In the end, they and the US will be the losers. Or maybe they will have the brilliant idea of starting a world war to control the Sun or the Wind or the Oceans or the heat at the center of the earth.

I wonder if it will ever be possible to have a president in the US who can make simply and smart decisions for the long term.
 
 
+5 # Kootenay Coyote 2012-06-23 05:57
Making war inevitable. This mindset is what the old word 'Sin' is really about.
 
 
+6 # 2lilluc 2012-06-23 06:08
How long can we continue to be so unforgivably stupid and allow oil to rule us and the world. I suppose until we run out or destroy this beautiful planet and us along with it.
Everyone knows that there are alternative sources of energy and power! The sun still has a good many billions of years left in her, the wind still blows for free, rivers still run to the sea, the ocean waves still crash on the shore, most of us have two strong legs, and those that don't...surely there are enough of us able to share our strength and help one another!
OIL+GREED+POWER +INIQUITY=
THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT
Cheney's evil ghost has apparently found a viable host..heartbreaking!
Still, nothing, and I mean nothing could make me support this republican party! The lesser of two evils perhaps?
 
 
+2 # dick 2012-06-23 06:40
A HUGE problem with articles like this is not laying out alternatives. He says "Washington" is not open to new ideas but does not demonstrate with New Ideas that would meet appropriate criteria for national security & a politician seeking re-election. What are the non-Cheneyish alternatives? And, yes, Obama has his base swindled by progressive rhetoric, tokens, & Romney fear mongering. Once you begin to see Obama a bit more clearly, ex., obstructing Bankster justice, decisions get tougher. Should Dems be punished for going rogue? Acting like GOPers? Send $$ to Liz, our real choice.
 
 
-1 # Granny Weatherwax 2012-06-23 14:22
Unfortunately there is no simple alternative.
To me this is not a problem with the article, but with Washington.
 
 
+5 # Doll 2012-06-23 07:19
Whenever I read an article like this, I get even more convinced that "The powers that be" TPTB, who are unelected run the show and not our elected representatives.

No, I do not know who they are but big oil is a big part of it.
 
 
+7 # Michael_K 2012-06-23 07:33
What really gets to me are people who whine that "a 3rd party candidate can't win"... I have vivid urges to have my shoe meet their butt at launch velocity! Of course they can't win, if you're brainwashed into believing this self-fulfilling prophecy!
 
 
-5 # Lolanne 2012-06-23 10:31
Michael_K: I am one of those who believe a 3rd party cannot possibly win now, 2012. BUT:
1) I am not a whiner.
2) My 74-yr-old butt is not about to be kicked, by you or anybody else.
3) I am not brainwashed.
4) I am not a denier.
What I am is a realist. Given the system we have at this moment in time, no, a 3rd party cannot win, has no chance at all, in this election.

What we need NOW, this year, is to get Obama reelected, in spite of our disappointment in him and in many cases our downright anger at him, AND get a majority of Dems in both houses of congress. If we can accomplish that, then the politicians have no excuse for not making changes we the people demand.
Those changes should begin with getting the money out of politics! We need publicly funded elections, with equal air time allotted to all candidates to make their case to us. Until we can get that gigantic task done, NOTHING is going to change. Not voting, or a write-in vote for a comparatively unknown candidate, will just waste your vote, giving it away to the repukes, help put them back into the WH. If you've forgotten already how bushco trashed this country, then go right ahead and throw away your vote.

Am I happy with Obama? HELL NO!
Am I going to vote for him anyway? HELL YES!
The alternative is simply unthinkable.
 
 
-4 # Granny Weatherwax 2012-06-23 14:23
Hear hear.

I absolutely second that.
 
 
-3 # Lolanne 2012-06-24 09:06
Quoting Granny Weatherwax:
Hear hear.
I absolutely second that.


Thanks, Granny. Obviously those of us looking clearly at reality and reason are outnumbered here. C'est la vie...
Those who decide to waste their vote in November will get a strong dose of reality afterward, and it will be a bitter pill to swallow. The sad thing is, we will ALL be stuck with the consequences: seeing what's left of the country destroyed by willard et al.
 
 
+2 # John Locke 2012-06-24 10:22
Lolanne: We already have had a dose of reality, and are waiting for the rest of you to wake up!

With all the information that keeps rearing its ugly head about Obama, how on earth can a sane person still deny who and what he is, and what they read?
 
 
-1 # Lolanne 2012-06-24 19:45
How on earth can a sane person who is not deaf, dumb and blind not understand how incredibly much worse allowing a repig back into the WH would be? How on earth could a sane person be willing to take a chance on giving a repig the opportunity of placing more partisan right-leaning justices on SCOTUS -- FOR THEIR LIFETIME???
 
 
+2 # Michael_K 2012-06-25 08:17
Quoting Lolanne:
How on earth can a sane person who is not deaf, dumb and blind not understand how incredibly much worse allowing a repig back into the WH would be? How on earth could a sane person be willing to take a chance on giving a repig the opportunity of placing more partisan right-leaning justices on SCOTUS -- FOR THEIR LIFETIME???


By simply acknowledging the sad reality that the "Repig" has become, in this case, the "lesser evil". Obama has behaved far worse than the "Repigs" he replaced, so why would you want so desperately to vote for a "not-so-stealth -Repig" rather than Romney?

A better question would be why wouldn't you vote for someone like Jill Stein, who isn't a "Repig" or even a "not-so-stealth -Repig"? Could it be that you have a subconscious yearning for Repigs?
 
 
0 # Lolanne 2012-07-05 14:05
Quoting Michael_K:
[quote . . .

A better question would be why wouldn't you vote for someone like Jill Stein, who isn't a "Repig" or even a "not-so-stealth-Repig"? . . .


Because they could not win and I do not want to waste my vote. Given the system we are currently stuck with, the only recourse I see is putting O back in office and electing a Dem majority in both houses. THEN we can work on changing the system from within to eliminate the money in politics. That's the only way I can see that we can EVER change the system. I'm with Granny W below: REPEAL CITIZENS UNITED! If it did not cost a fortune to run for office, THEN a 3rd party candidate would have a fighting chance. Right now, there is no chance, none, nada, zip.

There's no point in dignifying your last sarcastic comment with a response.
 
 
+3 # Granny Weatherwax 2012-06-23 14:24
Repeal Citizens United.
Cartago delenda est.
MoveToAmend.org.
 
 
+5 # erogers 2012-06-23 13:28
[quote name="Michael_K "]What really gets to me are people who whine that "a 3rd party candidate can't win"...
I totally agree with Michael_K. One need only look at Vermont to know that a 3rd party candidate can not only win but go up against both the Democrat and Republican machines. Bernie Sanders has stood up to both time and again. I want to puke when people tell me that voting 3rd party is a waste of a vote. Not only are they wrong but dammit it is my right to do so.
 
 
+1 # Michael_K 2012-06-24 16:32
They recognise that, if people actually voted their conscience rather than calculated "who can win", their 2 corrupt parties would be out on their respective asses.

So this explains their clearly illogical insistence. It also explains their mildly insulting premise that they understand the system, and we don't.
 
 
-3 # brianf 2012-06-23 08:26
To be fair, at the same time that Obama expanded oil drilling and fracking, he also has promoted green energy and efficiency. He raised the fuel standards for vehicles more than anyone has in the past, and through the stimulus, he (and the Democratic Congress) promoted the green energy industry.

But his overriding goal in all of the above has been energy independence. While that is an important goal, it is MUCH more important to stop global warming. This is true whether you are talking about national security or keeping the planet in a state where our descendants can thrive, or preventing a mass extinction.

This proves to me that Obama doesn't understand the biggest and most urgent threat we face. He can't possibly understand the science and expand oil drilling at the same time. He needs to be educated. We desperately need him to be educated.
 
 
+5 # paulrevere 2012-06-23 09:31
lost cause...
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN