FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Springsteen writes: "This presidential election is different than the last one because President Obama has a four year record to run on. Last time around, he carried with him a tremendous amount of hope and expectations. Unfortunately, due to the economic chaos the previous administration left him with, and the extraordinary intensity of the opposition, it turned into a really rough ride.""

Bruce Springsteen campaigning back in November 2008 for Barack Obama. Can his support help the president this time around? (photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Bruce Springsteen campaigning back in November 2008 for Barack Obama. Can his support help the president this time around? (photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)


Why I Support the President

By Bruce Springsteen, Reader Supported News

18 October 12

 

ear Friends:

The election is coming up on all of us and we all have strong feelings about it. I've been getting asked a lot about where I stand, so for those who are interested, here goes.

This presidential election is different than the last one because President Obama has a four year record to run on. Last time around, he carried with him a tremendous amount of hope and expectations. Unfortunately, due to the economic chaos the previous administration left him with, and the extraordinary intensity of the opposition, it turned into a really rough ride. But through grit, determination, and focus, the President has been able to do a great many things that many of us deeply support.

Domestically, that record includes working to increase and expand employment for all, protecting our all important social safety net, passing guaranteed health care for most of our citizens, with important new protections for all of the insured, rescuing the auto industry and so many of the American jobs that go with it, protecting and enhancing the rights of women, and bringing us closer to full acceptance of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

In foreign affairs, that record includes following through on the removal of troops from the misguided and deceptive war in Iraq, and vigorously pursuing our real foreign enemies, especially the killing of Osama Bin Laden.

Right now the opposition's resort to voter suppression in so many states is not receiving as much attention as it deserves. I believe that all of us, of whatever views, should be opposing these anti-voter, anti-citizen efforts.

Right now, for the President to be effective in his next term he needs our increased support and he needs support in the Congress, where some sterling candidates, such as current Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, challenger Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts, and so many others, are fighting to make their constructive voices heard.

Right now, there is an ever increasing division of wealth in this country, with the benefits going more and more to the 1 percent. For me, President Obama is our best choice to begin to reverse this harmful development.

Right now, there is a fight going on to help make this a fairer and more equitable nation. For me, President Obama is our best choice to get us and keep us moving in the right direction.

Right now, we need a President who has a vision that includes all of our citizens, not just some, whether they are our devastated poor, our pressured middle class, and yes, the wealthy too; whether they are male or female, black, white, brown, or yellow, straight or gay, civilian or military.

Right now, there is a choice going on in America, and I'm happy that we live in a country where we all participate in that process. For me, President Obama is our best choice because he has a vision of the United States as a place where we are all in this together. We're still living through very hard times but justice, equality and real freedom are not always a tide rushing in. They are more often a slow march, inch by inch, day after long day. I believe President Obama feels these days in his bones and has the strength to live them with us and to lead us to a country "...where no one crowds you and no one goes it alone."

That's why I plan to be in Ohio and Iowa supporting the re-election of President Obama to lead our country for the next four years.

Bruce Springsteen



Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

 

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

 
-88 # dkonstruction 2012-10-18 11:52
Sorry Bruce but Daniel Ellsberg statement is much better and i think much more honest...it's one thing to say those of us in "swing states" need/must vote for Obama to keep the rethugs from capturing the WH and potentially both houses of Congress (the real nightmare scenario) but that does not mean we should ignore, paper over, excuse or in any way justify those of his policies that have been truly heinous of which sadly there have been far too many.
 
 
+38 # brux 2012-10-18 13:22
Agree, with Ellsberg and you, but no one is pushing Obama, and he's certainly not pushing himself. For the "left" to push Obama we have to start prioritizing and agreeing on things, even if they seem to large to accomplish at least a course needs to be charted.

For Republicans, it's easy, they always just for for the cash.
 
 
-13 # NOMINAE 2012-10-18 19:24
@ brux

An exquisitely accurate argument with one exception. No one "pushes" the President but corporate lobbyists and Congress.

I have two words for all here who think that their vote has any power at all in a Presidential Election: "Electoral College".

To the Founders, "democracy" was a dirty word, because it *very* accurately describes "51% mob rule", as the Founders called democracy.

We were founded as a republic, not a true democracy. With a bit of old school spin, the Founders called it a "democratic republic".

To prevent "51% mob rule", the Founders invented the "Electoral College", designed to ensure that the President was *not* (and *IS* not) elected by a 51 % democratic mob rule.

The Electoral College was also ingenious in that it *fooled* the masses into thinking that they *were* the ones electing the President, with the result that they were less inclined to "pickup pitchforks" when their man lost.

And this is all without anyone breaking any rules. This is the way the system was *designed* to operate.

Your vote(barring illegal tampering)*does * count in local and (sometimes) State elections, but no one ever expected it to count in Presidential elections.

So all of the posturing and hand-wringing over the Presidential election evident on this site is simply ill-informed tilting at windmills.
 
 
+20 # bmiluski 2012-10-19 07:18
I haavebeen saying for years that the electoral college should be dismissed. Also, lets get rid of these non-paper trail voting machines.
 
 
+2 # portiz 2012-10-19 08:27
Quoting bmiluski:
I haavebeen saying for years that the electoral college should be dismissed. Also, lets get rid of these non-paper trail voting machines.


FWIW, if we eliminate the Electoral College, the most populpous states (CA, NY, etc.), which tend to vote overwhelmingly for liberal dems, will far overwhelm the less populous states (the large states that swing GOP tend to do vote cons GOP tend to do so only marginally... so they will also be overwhelmed).

Now, since I'm a lib-Dem, and live in NY, I'm OK with that. Are you???

PS You should also note that Dems take ~65% of the votes in CA and NY, and never even campaign here. That swing would probably be significantly larger if they did (if you disagree,consid er that if you were right, why doesn't the GOP campaign there?).
 
 
+9 # Billy Bob 2012-10-19 09:25
What we'd have is a democratic election. I'm ok with that. Aren't you?
 
 
0 # portiz 2012-10-19 10:58
Quoting Billy Bob:
What we'd have is a democratic election. I'm ok with that. Aren't you?


First, I already stated my answer.

Second, which is the question that you want an answer to?
"Is the president elected by people?", or
"Is the president elected by the states?"
 
 
-4 # jlstiles 2012-10-18 20:02
Here's what we clearly did not want and that Obama did regardless. We certainly pushed him and he ignored the people-
NDAA, Michael Taylor heading the FDA, drilling in the arctic and more deep water drilling after BP, BP off the hook and their mess covered up, drone warfare, torture and rendition and exoneration of previous torturers, putting the banksters in his cabinet and not prosecuting one banker for crashing the economy, letting big telecom off the hook for their felony spying, free trade in asia that sends jobs overseas and guts worker rights, war in Afghanistan, a health plan that has no public option, more privatization of public education in favor of vouchers and incessant testing to punish and close schools, torture of Bradley Manning and the unprecedented squashing of whistle blowers. These are all things Romney supports.
 
 
+19 # VoiceofReason613 2012-10-18 13:39
Since I live in New York State where Obama should win decisively, I plan to vote for the Green Party candidate Jill Stein. But, I think it is essential that Romney not become president, so I think that progressives should do everything possible to deny him a victory.
 
 
+68 # Sweet Pea 2012-10-18 14:41
Votes for a Green Party candidate could very well be enough to throw the majority to Romney. We need every vote that we can get for Obama I'll admit that we haven't seen too much of that "Change" that Obama promised, but at least some of us have healthcare that we wouldn't have had without him. He also seems to be reining in on some of the wars that were really draining the budget for many of the past years. Many of my friends are just existing with Social Security and Medicare, and we sure can't take a chance on losing that.
 
 
-56 # jlstiles 2012-10-18 16:41
Obama's plan is identical to Romney on Social Security and Medicare as they both plan to cut their percentage of GDP to the same level. Stop dreaming, Obama is already cutting your SS and Medicare when, in fact, both are economically sound. The claimed bankruptcy by the moderator of the VP debate was insane for framing her question to suggest this.
 
 
+19 # bmiluski 2012-10-19 07:23
No my dear......I guess you bought into the republican lie. President Obama DID NOT CUT ANY MEDICARE BENIFITS in order to save $176 billion. He made savings on the COST of medical expenses.
 
 
-11 # Observer 47 2012-10-18 19:58
"Reining in?" Obama escalated in Afghanistan.
 
 
-64 # jlstiles 2012-10-18 14:46
More like voice of cowardice. So you vote for Obama, essentially, but like to make your oh so progressive self believe you actually stand for something. How about advocating people vote in line with their values, which is certainly not the Obomney ticket.
 
 
+11 # bmiluski 2012-10-19 07:24
Again...typical empty republican rhetoric. Just keep throwing those neo-con doo-doo balls into the well of logic. Then no one will be able to drink the water.
 
 
+11 # bmiluski 2012-10-19 07:20
For someone who calls themselves "voice of reason" you don't do the walk. If a lot of people that think like you vote like you......we'll get a romney/ryan nightmare in the whitehouse.
 
 
+10 # George D 2012-10-19 07:58
I think what many on this board miss is that, like it or not, the Republicans tend to have something "we" don't have; Discipline. To a Progressive, that's a dirty word, but absent a cohesive plan and a UNITED FRONT, the challenge of making America a place for everyone will continue to be elusive.
Your example of how "you" will vote is precisely the problem. Until "you" decide that, no matter how much "you" like "your" ideas, more than the rest of us, and can afford to be a "maverick" WE will continue to fail; Including YOU.
Will "YOUR" candidate win? Not a chance. Will THEIR candidate win if we each go our own way and pat ourselves on the back for being "better" than the rest? ABSOLUTELY; EVERY SINGLE TIME.
So vote the way you want to but, a vote that doesn't support the "best" choice that CAN win, might as well be a vote for the WORST choice that can ALSO WIN.

Are we who we say we are? Do we really care about moving the country toward a more just and humane society or do we want to just fight the good fight ALONE and LOSE?

Normally I challenge people on these boards to find ways to convince "the other side" that they are wrong. Today I find myself trying to convince our own side that they might make a huge blunder by not being part of something bigger and more important than their own ego.
Please think about that and do the right thing for ALL of us.
 
 
+5 # Billy Bob 2012-10-19 09:26
Good comments. Thank you!
 
 
+3 # nancyw 2012-10-19 11:38
SHOULD win? Don't toss your vote to the Repugnicans with that kind of 'logic'... You have no idea.
 
 
0 # Doctor J 2012-10-20 06:58
Quoting VoiceofReason613:
Since I live in New York State where Obama should win decisively, I plan to vote for the Green Party candidate Jill Stein. But, I think it is essential that Romney not become president, so I think that progressives should do everything possible to deny him a victory.

What kind of reasoning did you use to come up with your conclusion? You want to deny Romney a victory, but you intend to throw away your vote?!? Voice of reason? Really?
 
 
-94 # jlstiles 2012-10-18 13:56
Finally, someone on RSN who sees what is going on. Figures RSN readers have voted this down as RSN is merely an Obama arse licking machine.
 
 
+61 # Independentgal 2012-10-18 15:28
If you think this way, why are you here? Are you bored with spewing hate on the Fox News site and others of that ilk?
 
 
-36 # jlstiles 2012-10-18 16:38
How you could construe anything I said as like Fox News is testament that you are too limited to think outside Obama or Romney as if hating Obama means I like Romney. Couldnt be further from the truth. My claim is they are both the same with only minor differences maginified by orchestrated debates (put on by private corporately sponsored commission) to get fools like you to believe in the theater and not even consider third parties that represent your views.
 
 
-9 # Observer 47 2012-10-18 20:00
Blunt and rude, jlstiles, but, unfortunately, true.
 
 
+31 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2012-10-18 15:35
Thanks for the insult. We're not stupid. In fact, we're WISE enough to understand that almost ALL critical decision in life are lesser-evil choices. In fact, you sound like YOu want YOUR arse kissed. Get real or get Romney. Get it?
 
 
-38 # jlstiles 2012-10-18 16:39
Thanks for the capitals. They really helped your 5th grade level of discernment come across.
 
 
+33 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2012-10-18 17:06
Says the person who used the phrase "ARSE-LICKING MACHINE." (And you forgot to hyphenate your compound modifier, there, oh self-elevated one.)

The caps are for emphasis in lieu of italics, because italics are not an option.

Once again, thanks for the insults — go with your strength, in this case, evidently your only strength. You really do sound like a rightwing crank.
 
 
-15 # jlstiles 2012-10-18 20:05
Name one thing that sounds right wing out of me. You are right wing in supporting corporatist Obama. My claim is Obama and Romney are both corporatist pawns and we should vote for a third party. Name one substantial difference between Romney and Obama other than gay rights and abortion?
 
 
+10 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2012-10-19 06:54
You are making the perfect be the enemy of the good. You talk as if a difference in degree makes absolutely no difference. That's absolutely nonsensical. If you had any sense of logic, two words would refute all the the drivel with which you've smeared this comments board: Supreme Court.

No difference between Romney and Obama? Give us all a break from your grandstanding.
 
 
+4 # dkonstruction 2012-10-19 08:31
Quoting jlstiles:
Name one thing that sounds right wing out of me. You are right wing in supporting corporatist Obama. My claim is Obama and Romney are both corporatist pawns and we should vote for a third party. Name one substantial difference between Romney and Obama other than gay rights and abortion?


i agree with you that both are "corporatist" candidates but that does not mean that there are not real differences between the two wings of the one party. As for other examples of differences: the dems wanted to extend long term unemployment benefits and ensure that women's basic reproductive health care needs must be covered in health insurance plans; the repubs oppose both. These are not "revolutionary" differences for sure but they would make a real difference in the lives of millions (if not tens or even hundreds of millions) of people.

So, i agree with you about Obama but not that there are no "substantial" differences (depending on how of course we define "substantial" but i would argue that to someone facing the loss of unemployment benefits or coverage for reproductive health care needs that these are pretty substantial.
 
 
+2 # pbbrodie 2012-10-21 13:56
Supreme Court nominees, most likely the most important difference of all their differences.
 
 
+68 # hilo 2012-10-18 13:59
Both Ellsberg and Springsteen wrote what they believe to be true. There is no doubt that Obama worked hard to get budgets that the Republican'ts would accept and that we are a better nation than we would have been without his determination. I hope that in these next four years he'll have the cooperation of congress in getting judges appointed and laws passed that make for more equitable banking practices and for peaceful settlements in world conflicts.
 
 
-48 # jlstiles 2012-10-18 14:44
Obama, of his own accord, independent of congress, has enacted horribly corporate and fascist policy. Are you not paying any attention?
 
 
-51 # jlstiles 2012-10-18 14:04
You don't look to Springsteen for political insight, obviously. He has ignored the NDAA, Bradley Manning torture, continuance of torture, not prosecuting a single banker or torturer, his cabinet of criminals, his putting Michael Taylor, CEO of Monsanto, as head of the FDA, his abandoning of Wisconsin, his expanison of war, expansion of drones which is disgusting and murderous, his privatization of education on a massive scale beyond Bush, his sqaushing of whistleblowers beyond what Bush did, his planned cutting of Medicare and Social Security to the same levels as Romney plans, his corporately written health plan with which Romney failed already in MA, his expansion of drilling in the arctic and in the gulf right after BP ruined it and he let them totally off the hook, covering up the disaster. But, yes, he came out to support gay rights, which is totally unimportant compared to major policy. His gay rights and abortion stance step on no corporate toes yet creates a theater of difference between him and Romney. Vote third party!
 
 
+26 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2012-10-18 15:39
Blah, blah, blah. When we get America back to tolerable, THEN we'll work on getting it back to perfect. Wait a minute, it never WAS perfect — EVER.
 
 
-32 # jlstiles 2012-10-18 16:46
Obama keeps kicking you in the nads and you keep taking it. You can vote for a third party that actually represents you instead of Obomney. I mean: Name one thing Obama has done or stood for of import that differs from Romney.
 
 
+34 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2012-10-18 17:43
Helped create 5 million jobs, stopped the avalanche of aftermath of Bush’s Decade of Disaster, gave the largest tax break in history to 95% of Americans, gave every state critical financial aid to weather the Bush recession, saved the auto industry, overhauled the food safety system, advanced women's rights, ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell, fixed student load program, stopped defending DOMA in court, passed the Hate Crimes bill, appointed two progressive women to the Supreme Court, expanded access to medical care, expanded the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), fixed the preexisting conditions travesty in health insurance, invested in clean energy, reined in the abuses of the credit card industry, began the re-regulation of the financial sector, created The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, provided much-needed support for veterans, helped real people like those injured during the clean-up after the 9/11 attacks, killed Osama Bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda leaders, ended the War in Iraq, began the drawdown of forces from Afghanistan, fought an obstructionist Republican party every day, made BP pay for it’s disaster, did not get us into new wars, and on his time off he saved the world from financial meltdown.

For more, go here:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/09/01/a-long-list-of-president-obamas-accomplishments-with-citations/
 
 
-9 # jlstiles 2012-10-18 20:52
While what you cited has a tiny bit of substance, it's mostly fluff or untrue. CHIP was good to expand as teddy kennedy sponsored the bill and it passed congress. Barry signed it instead of vetoing it insanely like Bush. The food safety has been one of Barry's worst policies--he installed Monsanto CEO, Michael Taylor, to be lead advisor of the FDA. Can't do any worse. He made BP do nothing, covered up their crimes and abandoned all criminal pursuit while shortly after expanded deep water drilling and arctic drilling. He did not fix much in health as Romney already failed with the same plan in Massachusettss- we needed a strong stand for public option instead of insurance cos writing the bill as they did. The good that the health bill does will be canceled by its unsustainabilit y and poor care in other regards as shown in MA. He expanded the war in afghanistan, expanded drone warfare all over the place. I don't count "did not get us into new wars" because that is not different than Romney necessarily but both Romney and Obama believe in war as a policy instrument and wanted to expand the military budget over education or anything else. We know the economics of this country are insane and Glass-Steagall is a major key but not a peep out of Obama on that. His legislation has no teeth and has not curbed the wall-street shenanigans at all. Helped create 5 million jobs? That is not citing a policy move but more of a bold statement without fact to back it up.
 
 
+12 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2012-10-19 06:40
All your statements above are reflections of your insistence on giving Obama no credit for ANY progress (truly telling) — all jaded interpretations and unfounded predictions. You are a whining child who wants the world set right immediately. Following suit, you are rude and boorish — THAT'S why you sound like a rightwing crank, in addition to your prevailing strangled logic that if we can't have perfect, we should crash the temple down around us. You're like a little yapping dog who can't hear anything but his own barking. Obama couldn't do anything worse? Waste your vote and you'll find out how bad it could have been and still could get.

Get real or get Romney. In your case, get your head out of la-la land.
 
 
+8 # Billy Bob 2012-10-19 08:09
The idea that you think that was all without substance shows the fact that you live in a land of magical fairies with lollipop tree-tops and rainbow colored mountains.

In your world everyone can be an absolutist as though our actions have no negative consequences. In your world, Mommy and Daddy can always bail you out. You can "sell a few stocks" to get through the "rough spots".

The rest of us live on EARTH

On Earth it DOES matter that people have jobs. It DOES matter that we are not in a full-blown depression.

It DOES matter that people are still getting their Social Security checks.

It DOES matter that we are not at war with Iran, even though the President has been pushed hard into one by the very right-wing you don't mind gaining more power.

---------------

None of these things will matter to you of course. You won't be suffering no matter who is elected. Millions of others WILL, but why should YOU care?

FUCK 'EM, RIGHT?!
 
 
+26 # Bill Clements 2012-10-18 21:59
Are you kidding me? You honestly don't see ANY difference between Obama and Romney? Even more outrageous is your statement that Obama has done nothing different these last four years that Romney wouldn't have done. I can't quite get my mind around that one.

You're not paying attention to what a Romney/Ryan administration would mean for women, immigrants, the middle class, etc.
 
 
+10 # bmiluski 2012-10-19 08:14
Now I get it.....you're just pretending to be an "Alternative". You keep advocating the vote for a 3rd party because it will take the votes away from President Obama. Hmmmm.....inter esting. So I suppose voter suppression and rigged voting machines aren't enough to gaurantee a stolen election for the neo-cons.
 
 
+7 # dkonstruction 2012-10-19 08:34
Quoting jlstiles:
Obama keeps kicking you in the nads and you keep taking it. You can vote for a third party that actually represents you instead of Obomney. I mean: Name one thing Obama has done or stood for of import that differs from Romney.


again, what about extending long term unemployment benefits that the repubs wanted to cut off or making sure that basic reproductive health care needs for women are covered by all insurance plans. Are these not "important"? I agree with your take on Obama and that neither of the things i've mentioned are "revolutionary" and that yes we need far more substantive and genuine progressive/rad ical/revolution ary changes in this country. But it is simply wrong to say that there are no differences at all because for millions of people who would lose these benefits and coverage the differences are real and they matter.
 
 
+28 # SouthWind 2012-10-18 18:42
Voting third party in 2000 put Florida up for grabs, eventually giving us Bush by throwing the election to the Supreme Court. We don't have a parliamentary system where third (and fourth) parties are more viable; we have, for better or worse, a two-party system.
 
 
+46 # Granny Weatherwax 2012-10-18 14:28
Honesty speaks to how one perceives his own message.
I have no reason to believe that Bruce Springsteen is dishonest here.
 
 
-36 # jlstiles 2012-10-18 16:47
He's not dishonest, just a sheep like the rest of people who think Obama is their friend. When someone on this site can point to one thing of import Obama has stood for that differs from Romney other than gay rights, I would like to know what it is.
 
 
+1 # ABen 2012-10-21 15:16
You asked for one thing. How about the Lily Ledbetter Act. This was Obama's first act as President, a much needed act about which Romney was not even aware. Perhaps you don't think this was substantive, but millions of women and thinking men do.
 
 
+35 # Virginia 2012-10-18 15:55
Barbara K is right - the Republicans were hell bent on making Obama fail. But he has made some choices that have caused part of his problem. He came out of the box as a Centrist with blinders. When your enemies won't rationally work with you, keep them close but clobber them with a successful public plan.

The problem America has is that Obama's advisors told him save the banks - it was a CYA move for Goldman Sachs. Obama comes from a bank mentality and it's hard to put the crooks in jail who supply you with what you crave the most...money. So, 84 million American families are in horrible straits. Pension funds, savings and equity have been wiped out and we are still in a depression...be cause we propped up the banks.

Iceland jailed their banksters and there economic growth exceeds America and the UK. Obama's misperception of only saving his definition of "responsible" homeowners is what is making this election so close.

America wants the bank fraud recognized. They want the bankers to go to jail for the frauds, including the rate LIBOR scam. We don't want tax dollars used to bail out and manipulate the banks' books. Break them up, take them over, take them down - and audit the entire mess until the cows come home. But we can no longer afford to have our President stand in the middle of the road trying to make the bullies "play nice" - that's how you get run over in a close election.
 
 
-22 # jlstiles 2012-10-18 16:51
True, true, but have you considered Obama is just an actor in an orchestrated theater to keep the tyranny firmly in place? I mean look at this site, filled with people who think Obama is their friend, trying to fight but with incorrect strategy as you suggest. No, of Obama's own accord, having nothing to do with congress, he has enacted horribly corporate and tyrannical policy such as the NDAA, his free trade agreements, his squashing of whistle blowers, his appointing Michael Taylor of Monsanto to lead the FDA, the list goes on. He is clearly not your friend and clearly is not merely bad at strategy.
 
 
+24 # ganymede 2012-10-18 18:09
You do go on. Either you're a plant or insane. What planet do you think we live on? We're in a hole created primarily by the rightwing and you're blind to the reality we and Obama face. Do you really want to see us fall deeper into the rabbit hole, while anyone with half a brain knows that Obama, far from perfect, will at least try to ameliorate the situation, and if he gets a democratic Congress, we will see real progress.
 
 
+5 # dkonstruction 2012-10-19 08:44
Quoting ganymede:
You do go on. Either you're a plant or insane. What planet do you think we live on? We're in a hole created primarily by the rightwing and you're blind to the reality we and Obama face. Do you really want to see us fall deeper into the rabbit hole, while anyone with half a brain knows that Obama, far from perfect, will at least try to ameliorate the situation, and if he gets a democratic Congress, we will see real progress.


I agree with you that we need to do all we can to prevent a romney victory but it simply not true that all of our problems are due to the retugs...it was a dem. bill clinton that deregulated our financial system (and got rid of glass-steagal); advanced the attack on the US working class through "free trade" agreements such as NAFTA, "ended welfare as we know it" and pushed for the draconian drug laws that are a big part of "the new jim crow" in this country.

So, yes, we need to ensure that Romney doesn't get in but that does not mean that jlstiles or anyone else critiquing Obama is wrong in their critique even if we disagree that those of us in swing states should vote for obama just to keep romney from winning
 
 
+6 # Cassandra2012 2012-10-19 09:40
Rombot is a bloviating, self-centered bully with no moral compass. Only interested in gaining power.
He has no real sense of human beings (other than those who belong to his Mormon cult.)
 
 
+6 # Virginia 2012-10-19 00:05
God I hope not. Barry comes from a culture that very much believes in karma - and it would be hard to believe he could be re-programmed totally evil. I think he is proud to be the first black American President. I think there were sacrifices made to getting to the White House, but he knows his roots and respects his culture.

Once you are President, you can't just lead the country for your friends; however, I imagine it's even more difficult to lead surrounded by your enemies.
 
 
+5 # Cassandra2012 2012-10-19 09:37
Barry??
 
 
+1 # dkonstruction 2012-10-19 08:38
Quoting jlstiles:
True, true, but have you considered Obama is just an actor in an orchestrated theater to keep the tyranny firmly in place? I mean look at this site, filled with people who think Obama is their friend, trying to fight but with incorrect strategy as you suggest. No, of Obama's own accord, having nothing to do with congress, he has enacted horribly corporate and tyrannical policy such as the NDAA, his free trade agreements, his squashing of whistle blowers, his appointing Michael Taylor of Monsanto to lead the FDA, the list goes on. He is clearly not your friend and clearly is not merely bad at strategy.


I for one have never said that Obama is "our friend." I have no illusions about who he is or what he has done. But, again, that does not mean there are no differences at all and these differences matter to millions of people in their daily lives. So, it may be easy for those who are not facing the loss of long-term unemployment benefits or losing coverage for basic reproductive health care needs to say that there is "no difference" but it is simply not true. these may not be differences that affect you personally but then elections are not about "me" or at least not fully. They are also about the real consequences for all of our brothers and sisters out there millions of whom would be seriously adversely affected by a Romney victory (even more so if the repubs take back both houses of congress).
 
 
+26 # Third_stone 2012-10-18 16:22
So you want to compare the literary skills of a working man from Jersey to a college professor and say the professor wrote better. I think Bruce probably wrote better if it were in proportion to the amount of writing he has done. Bruce's statement is a strong stand and he has is facts in very good order. Actually I felt a hint of a musical cadence to it.
More people know the name of Bruce Springsteen than Obama, and he is willing to put that to work for us. I thank him.
 
 
-9 # Observer 47 2012-10-18 19:54
Agree 100%, dkonstruction. The Obama supporters who keep giving the thumbs down to the truth-tellers like you, are, in fact, ignoring NDAA, ruined ecosystems, hand-outs to banks, torture and rendition, escalation in Afghanistan, Goldman Sachs appointees in the White House, a back-room deal to abandon single-payer, and on and on. We're screwed no matter who gets elected, and to think otherwise is to be naive. Romney in the White House is unthinkable, but Obama ain't no prize. The only way anything positive will happen in his second term is if progressives relentlessly hold his feet to the fire.
 
 
+3 # Billy Bob 2012-10-19 08:14
Actually, the fact that so many of them are giving thumbs down illustrates just how many of them there actually are.

Not everyone has as much time as you and I do to make these vain comments.

Some people have to work their asses off FOR A LIVING. The fact that you've chosen to insult these people's intelligence for not getting into it about the details with you, shows just how truly arrogant and aloof your side of the argument is and how little you will be personally impacted by the consequences of your desparate drive to elect Twit Romney.
 
 
+39 # brux 2012-10-18 13:20
>> Unfortunately, due to the economic chaos the previous administration left him with, and the extraordinary intensity of the opposition, it turned into a really rough ride.

With you so far Boss ....

>> But through grit, determination, and focus ...

Well, let's not take that too far now. Obama 2012! Somewhat better than the awful alternative. :-(
 
 
+42 # Mercedes 2012-10-18 13:21
No need to judge which statement is "better" or "more honest." Springsteen and Ellsberg are speaking from different perspectives, both valid and necessary. To speak of what HAS been achieved in no way ignores all that has not, or all that we still must do (the "we" comes from Ellsberg). Springsteen is going to be doing what Ellsberg urges, namely reaching out to swing voters in Ohio and Iowa. What will you be doing?
 
 
-43 # jlstiles 2012-10-18 14:41
Springsteen's a tool and Obama is a corporatist just as nefarious as Romney in every way but gay rights and abortion, which only serve to create a perceived difference. Vote third party or write in a candidate, that's a hell of a lot better than what Bruce is doing, campaigning for the status quo like the mainstream artist he is, glorifying our great gift of this sham of an election where third party voices or any voice or reason and dissent is eliminated by both parties. This election is an embarrassment along with the orchestrated debates. Yeah, Mercedes, go chip in 5 bucks to be further corporatized by the lesser of two evils, you really did your part.
 
 
+24 # cbb 2012-10-18 13:30
thank you bruce; this is why you are the "boss." thank you woody, th'weavers, pete seeger, pp& mary, the Iconic zimmerman, etc. http://www.amazon.com/Bruce-Springsteen-Promise-Rock-Roll/dp/0393081354
 
 
+41 # polgal333 2012-10-18 13:46
Part 1
Greg Palast: "Mitt Romney’s Bailout Bonanza: How He Made Millions from the Rescue of Detroit"
And helped send the jobs he destroyed to China.
October 18, 2012 |
AMY GOODMAN: we turn to a major new exposé on the cover of The Nation magazine called "Mitt Romney’s Bailout Bonanza: How He Made Millions from the Rescue of Detroit." Investigative reporter Greg Palast reveals how Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney made at least $15 million on the auto bailout and that three of Romney’s top donors made more than $4 billion for their hedge funds from the bailout. Greg Palast, welcome back to Democracy Now! So, lay it out for us.
 
 
-37 # cordleycoit 2012-10-18 14:07
I am dismayed by the choiceless choice we are being offered. Obama wears many masks including the killer of children. He refuses to change the the current paradime of executive murder by drones. He maintains torture chambers and encourages torturer's. If he cannot stop these practices why vote at all?
 
 
-36 # jlstiles 2012-10-18 14:26
vote third party or write in a candidate. that is exercising your power even though they have no chance. It is much better than affirming a corporatist dick like Obama or Romney.
 
 
+12 # medusa 2012-10-18 21:54
Idle profanity is not the sign of understanding-- it's an offense to normal citizens.
 
 
+5 # Billy Bob 2012-10-19 08:15
It's also another display of vain arrogance.
 
 
+7 # Billy Bob 2012-10-19 08:24
What about our parents and children? You're not asking me to choose between a 3rd party and President Obama. You're asking me to choose between a 3rd party and MY MOM and MY KIDS.

A vanity vote for a 3rd party isn't going to protect my Mom's Social Security and Medicaid from Romney and Ryan's plans to take those things away from her.

A vanity vote for a 3rd party isn't going to prevent my kids from paying the ongoing costs in money and their lives for the upcoming WAR WITH IRAN - the war that the President has, so far, been able to keep repuglicans from starting. McCain wanted it back in 2008. Romney wants it now.

-------------------

-When YOUR elderly parents or grandparents go hungry or without medical care you can talk trash about how dirty you feel voting for their very survival.

-When YOUR children are drafted to fight for the corporate profit of the oil industry against a country bigger and more powerful than Iraq and Afghanistan combined, you can talk trash about how dirty you feel voting for their future.

Until then, spare us the arrogant foul-mouthed lecture on "morality".
 
 
+22 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2012-10-18 15:42
Name one modern US president under which innocents were not killed — including the water torture, which was done in Vietnam without question.
 
 
-12 # 8myveggies 2012-10-18 18:38
So, the fact that it's become a, er, tradition makes it OK? I'll be proudly voting for Jill Stein.
 
 
+16 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2012-10-18 20:02
Not at all, and, though I know you only feign the inability to grasp the intent of my statement, I'll explain the obvious. Even under a President Kucinich, innocents would be killed — it's a virtual certainty in any military action. But how foolishly Pollyanna-ish to demand of Obama that which no other president has been able to live up to. Things first have to get better before they can get to where we ideally want them — but they'll only get worse with Romney. Yes there is a question of degree — life is full of questions of degree and very void of absolutes. To think otherwise is to be a fool, and to be a fool is to be worthless to any cause of progress. We live in the real, not the ideal. Get real or get Romney. Falling on your sword only helps bring the worst possible outcome one vote closer to reality.
 
 
+7 # Lolanne 2012-10-19 06:50
Quoting 8myveggies:
So, the fact that it's become a, er, tradition makes it OK? I'll be proudly voting for Jill Stein.


And how proud will you be when you have helped deliver all of us into the greedy hands of Twit and Twerp, the RR boys?
 
 
+1 # pbbrodie 2012-10-21 14:10
Jimmy Carter!
 
 
+14 # Douglas Jack 2012-10-18 19:01
Cordleycolt, Yes Obama & the US, Canadian, NATO war machine is all of the things you mention & so much-much worse, still Romney is the Media-Military- Industrial-Comp lex on steroids & WW3. In swing-states it is time to hold your nose, vote Obama & take responsibility for a better world in every way we can united to make mutual-aid for all. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/design/1-article-on-indigenous-welcome
 
 
+5 # Cassandra2012 2012-10-19 09:45
Remember Romney thinks corproations are 'people' but workers/teacher s/ firemen/ etc. are just commodities like servants , or worse, serfs.
 
 
-41 # Depressionborn 2012-10-18 14:09
For the record, when Obama became a Senator in 2005, he listed his net worth as $328,442. Now in his fourth year was POTUS, Obama's net worth is $11.8 million. All while in four years many good jobs are lost and median household income declines by $4,520. Go figure. Maybe even follow the money?
 
 
+31 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2012-10-18 15:48
NOW you're sounding like a Republican crank. Obama's income was mostly driven by royalties from his books. They included his 1995 memoir "Dreams From My Father" and his 2006 political book, "The Audacity of Hope." Those were followed by a children's book, "Of Thee I Sing: A Letter to My Daughters." He also makes $400,000 a year and has little reason to spend it.
 
 
+46 # genierae 2012-10-18 14:17
Thank you Bruce Springstein for all that you are. You have given us so much pleasure and your music affirms all the best there is about being an American. Bravo! I agree that President Obama must continue carrying us forward, and if he gets re-elected he will be able to do much more. It is essential for every person who cares about this country to get out and vote Obama. Romney would be worse than Bush.
 
 
+60 # Barbara K 2012-10-18 14:21
I agree. Even though the President was stopped from getting some of his goals met because of the "NO WAY" repukes in Congress, he managed to get many goals met. President Obama is the one with our best interests in mind and has been trying to meet them. We need more Dems in Congress so he can get some cooperation for the President and get the Jobs Bill unblocked and passed, as well as the 300 other Blocked Bills passed. The country would be well on the way to even more recovery if the Bills had been passed in the first place; but the party of NO wouldn't lift a finger to help US, WE, the PEOPLE. They didn't give a crap about helping us. Time for them to go. They made good money doing nothing for the past 2 years.

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012
The alternative is unbearable.
 
 
-40 # jlstiles 2012-10-18 14:28
That's the best you can say,m "The alternative is unbearable". Wow, power has you check-mated, running in fear from one corporatist right into the hands of another. Name one major policy move Obama has done that differs from Romney? You better look hard, really hard.
 
 
+7 # Cassandra2012 2012-10-19 09:48
Yes, we must remember that the party of 'no' requires its members in congress to follow Grover Norquist's dictates without question.
They are loyal -- to their party,
but utterly disloyal to the country.
If not actually treasonous, they are amoral tools of the corporate robber barons
 
 
+40 # Corvette-Bob 2012-10-18 14:24
No President in American history had the other party sabotage the economy in attempt to gain a political advantage for the next election. Can anybody tell me one piece of legislation that has been submitted for passage by the Republican Congress in an attempt to improve the economy. For God sakes that would not even pass a jobs bill for the returning vets from war. They would not pass a farm bill, they would not pass a jobs bill, etc. Pres Obamas has faced a brickwall throughout his first term. All I can say with a deep laugh is that he will be re-elected on November 6, 2012 and Hillary Clinton in 2016.
 
 
+34 # xflowers 2012-10-18 14:45
I'm with Bruce. And I vote in Ohio.
 
 
-27 # seeuingoa 2012-10-18 14:52
Come on please , not good enough!
Can the Bruce Springsteen that we love
be for for four more years of
Kill list
Tarsand pipe line, and
Indefinite detention

Romney is a no go and Obame also,

Please vote for Jill Stein / Green Party
and make this election a statement of
moral and ethical issues.
 
 
-25 # jlstiles 2012-10-18 16:53
Yes, more of us are on here, pointing out how Obama is not our friend, that he is in a pro-wrestling match with Romney when both are working for the same bastards.
 
 
+32 # gsb57 2012-10-18 15:06
cordycolt: Why vote at all?

To prevent a Bork-advised Romney appointment to the
SUpreme Court, To maintain Medicare, to prevent
denial of health insurance to those with pre-existing
conditions. To prtect reproductive choice, medicaid,
unemployment insurance, food stamps. To keep
open even the possibilty of democratic change.....
 
 
+6 # Cassandra2012 2012-10-19 09:51
To avoid a crypto-fascist takeover by Grover Norquist's anointed bishop.
 
 
+21 # fredboy 2012-10-18 15:30
Thanks Bruce. This will likely be the pivotal election in our lifetime.
 
 
-40 # skylinefirepest 2012-10-18 15:59
What record Bruce?? 16 trillion in debt, almost 25 million people either unemployed or underemployed, lied about the killing of a U.S. ambassador, bowed to foreign leaders, lowered our credit rating twice?? And you want another four years of this crap?? You've got to be freaking kidding me!!! A vote for obumma is about as unpatriotic an act as I can imagine. We need jobs and obumma doesn't have a clue. We need to cut spending and obumma wants to increase spending. We need an honest man in the White House and we have an America hating liar!! And you want four more years of this??
 
 
+1 # Doctor J 2012-10-20 07:14
Quoting skylinefirepest:
What record Bruce?? 16 trillion in debt, almost 25 million people either unemployed or underemployed, lied about the killing of a U.S. ambassador, bowed to foreign leaders, lowered our credit rating twice?? And you want another four years of this crap?? You've got to be freaking kidding me!!! A vote for obumma is about as unpatriotic an act as I can imagine. We need jobs and obumma doesn't have a clue. We need to cut spending and obumma wants to increase spending. We need an honest man in the White House and we have an America hating liar!! And you want four more years of this??

If we need an honest man in the White House, that surely rules out Mitt Romney.
 
 
+30 # Art947 2012-10-18 16:11
I keep hearing all those people who complain about which of Pres. Obama's promises he did not keep. Especially in the area of constitutional rights. Let us examine a few facts:

1. Pres. Obama signed an Executive Order shortly after the inauguration to close Gitmo. What did the Congress do? It made sure that NO funds would be available for the process. But Mr. Obama had a Democratic majority in Congress. Yes, but how many of those "democrats" were Blue Dogs? Too many to be sure!

2. Pres. Obama wanted to try the 9/11 defendants in NY City where the crime took place. What happened? Hypocrites such as Rudy Guiliani, Peter King and a host of others said that it would be too dangerous. Exactly opposite the position that they took BEFORE Mr. Obama was elected!

3. The USA Patriot Act and the NDAA were passed by the Congress with veto-proof majorities. Would it have mattered if the President had indicated that he would veto the legislation?

Am I pleased by the drone attacks? No, however, if the President did not go after these suspected terrorists the right (wrong) wing would lay a charge of being weak on him.
 
 
+17 # Majikman 2012-10-18 19:32
Thank you, Art, for a small sampling of the repug obstructionism. Not to mention the repug congress denying the recent request for additional embassy security...and then blaming Obama.
Notice that the mouth breathing trolls on RSN only crawl out of their holes when an article is pro Obama. I don't even bother to read their bile...just auto red thumb the name as they have absolutely nothing of value to contribute.
 
 
+1 # Eliza D 2012-10-20 17:30
Thanks for a reasoned defense of Obama and his actions, as opposed to the simpleminded drone given by so many on this site that Republicans are worse. I will still vote for Rocky Anderson, but maybe I won't be as horrified if Obama wins, and I think Obama will win.
However, I cannot believe that you think drone attacks are justified because Republicans will vilify Obama if he doesn't use them. He is setting us up for a future in which we will be ducking from the drones sent by other countries in retaliation for the US strikes.
 
 
+7 # Douglas Jack 2012-10-18 16:14
Sad Bruce Springsteen's celebrating assassination of Osama Bin Laden & other "real-enemies". As Pogo (Walt Kelly cartoon) stated, "We have met the enemy and he is us". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_(comic_strip)
Daniel Ellsberg makes a serious statement, which we can take to heart. This election is not one which can be handed to the repugs. They will implement atrocity worldwide beyond Obama's atrocities. Repugs will continue to implement e-voting after which there is no choice. Time to hold our noses & vote none-the-less in swing-states. With friends like Springsteen & most of US, Canadian, NATO country citizens mad with a George Orwell uninformed 'hate' rabies, making peace isn't going to be easy. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/home/2-mutual-aid
 
 
+16 # Art947 2012-10-18 16:15
My previous comment was abridged to fit, however, I wanted to add the following:

We have much work to do if we want to return the US of A to a country that believes in the values enshrined in the Constitution. However, note that this will entail electing representatives to the House and Senate who will uphold these values, and making sure that any new members of SCOTUS agree with these positions as well. The record of the current SCOTUS and our COngressional respresentative s have not been good on these issues for more than a decade!
 
 
+21 # polgal333 2012-10-18 16:24
READ HOW MUCH THE SLIME BALL THINKS ABOUT AMERICA, ITS CITIZENS AND JOBS. ALL HE AND HIS CRONIES WORK AT IS LINING THEIR OWN POCKETS. ONLY SUCKERS WOULD FALL FOR ROMNEY'S LIES.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/greg-palast-mitt-romneys-bailout-bonanza-how-he-made-millions-rescue-detroit?akid=9545.294695.C_hQsX&rd=1&src=newsletter729448&t=3
 
 
+16 # jlbjazz 2012-10-18 16:28
Some of the comments point out that choosing between the two parties are, more or less, no choice. And that some of this administrations policies are bad...and I agree. But...in recent years, the GOP has moved so, so far to the extreme right (whereas the Dems move, even since the 60's, towards the middle/middle right, has actually been quite modest), that there is now, once again, a considerable difference. (see e.g., the post from #gsb57). And yes, we do need at least a 3 party system...but given the extremist positions of the current GOP, (and although I do understand that it has to be done sometime soon) can we strive, this time around, to have a more moderate Administration and Congress, which may very well create the atmosphere to enable us to realize that 3+ system?
 
 
+11 # jorspe 2012-10-18 16:34
Good song, Bruce ... as you point out, the cup is more than half full and it seems to be filling again now. There was no doubt in my mind that it was going the other way under leadership from the right. I don't like some of what has happened and continues to go on (e.g., drone attacks that sometimes hit the wrong folks), but am quite sure it would be worse on many fronts if lead from the other side.
 
 
+6 # patmonk 2012-10-18 16:42
PRAGMATISM.
Like many I am deeply disappointed with Obama's performance, but I did not have great expectations to begin with. They are all politicians and cannot be trusted. I'm sick of the fact that we are always left with a choice between the lesser of evils. However the thought of Romney ruling the world is truly horrifying. One collective option might be that in swing states we vote for Obama, but in those states where progressive and independent votes won't make a difference, vote your conscience, it could help expand a base for alternative 'partys', though I would still refuse to swallow any party line.
 
 
+10 # HerbR 2012-10-18 17:12
"Make me do it", said Pres Truman to petitioners who wanted him to go their way in policy. Good advice: IT's UP TO US TO GET WHAT WE WANT BY MAKING OBAMA DO IT ! so, hang together and display your power to get what you want from that government !!
 
 
+9 # wfalco 2012-10-18 17:39
I agree with Bruce. As always many here expect something that was never promised.
Obama has attempted to do what he spoke of in 2008:
-withdraw from Iraq, target the real enemies (I stand with Bill Maher on this), expand and regulate health insurance, and provide a voice for the voiceless.

Of course he has not done enough to please us chronic compainers on the left. But what exactly do some of you expect? We never had the super majority necessary to pass the truly progressive "change" we would all prefer. How exactly do you enact a progressive agenda when even some Democrats (the Southerners) are difficult to rely on.
The Dems in office are realists-unlike many who read RSN. They understand that a disaster in all its Corporatist/Fas cist glory would sweep the nation without them. Its the country we live in. Ignorance reigns and conservatives with their simplistic demonization of anything liberal gives order to white America.
And all of this "lesser of two evils" stuff is nonsense. There is no definitive "good" or "evil". Those are merely absolutes that have nothing to do with every day life and its need for conflict resolution.
 
 
-12 # jimmykeys 2012-10-18 20:49
I find my progressive friends to be very afraid or reluctant to consider that Obama is not their friend. I think that jlstiles uses put downs more than he should, but I also see him as essentially correct. It is telling to see those who want Obama to be seen as a lesser evil cast for something positive to say about Obama's corporatist militarist record. Obama is a wonk, which is to say he does not profess a real vision of a future for America, but makes policy proposals that try to please the Democratic center and not expose him to any ire from the right center. To not trust a candidate who doesn't take a single controversial stance is NORMAL. A candidate has to take at least ONE stance that is principled (which means is uncompromising) in order to impress us as a human being, and can still WIN with that stance. I defend all of us who distrust Obama deeply. I even understand why jlstiles gets a little vituperative, given that he is surrounded by people who remind me of my friends (who say things like "I need to have hope that's why I support Obama)......
 
 
-13 # Mellifluous 2012-10-18 20:59
“It is urgently important to prevent a Republican administration under Romney/Ryan from taking office in January 2013.” -- Daniel Ellsberg, RSN

I agree. Having said that, allow me to offer a parody. To the tune of Neil Young’s “Ohio”:

The missiles appeared suddenly
We’re bloodied and broken-boned
Some murderers; some unlucky
Killed by Obama’s drones

Gotta face up to it,
Remotely blowing us up
Who's the real terrorist? Who?
What if you knew us?
This ain’t a video game
They'll soon be aiming at you

Na na na na na na na na
Na na na na na na na
Na na na na na na na na
Killed by Obama's drones (How many more?)
Killed by Obama's drones (screams)
Killed by Obama's drones, etc.
 
 
-5 # Mellifluous 2012-10-18 21:05
Come to think of it, "bloody" scans better than "bloodied". I should've edited more carefully.

Yeah, I know it's not funny. I'm genuinely torn between voting Green and holding my nose and voting for Obama here in the Buckeye State.
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2012-10-19 07:45
To all the people URGING us not to vote for Obama and ensure Twit is elected:

1. What do you say to the millions of people who's Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, college grants, and college loans will be threatened by romney's Presidency?

2. What do you say to the millions who will be killed and have their lives destroyed when Twit starts the WAR he wants with IRAN?

If you are too proud to vote for Obama, thereby enabling Twit to seize the White House, in affect you're saying:

"FUCK 'EM".

------------------------------

It's time to get over yourselves.
 
 
-2 # Ed 2012-10-19 15:36
Quoting Billy Bob:
To all the people URGING us not to vote for Obama and ensure Twit is elected:

... What do you say to the millions who will be killed and have their lives destroyed when Twit starts the WAR he wants with IRAN?...


It's not one man who wages war. There are loads of megalomaniac Yanks who have been on power trip since 1945. Who cares who gets in? Obama would stand by tutting and watch Israel attack Iran then join in, and Romney would do the same but enjoy it openly. The USA is a bullying murderous criminal state. We'll have to wait a few more years in hope that the Chinese become big just enough to bring the Yankie knuckle-dragger s down a peg or six.
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2012-10-19 22:00
Thank you. Spoken like someone who truly doesn't give a shit about Americans because you couldn't care less what happens to all of us.

Then again, even as a foreign citizen who has no place in this election except from the sidelines and hates Americans, EVEN YOU have a vested interest in seeing President Obama win.

Do you think the President couldn't have started a war with Iran ALREADY if he he had wanted to? Do you think repugs were trying to prevent it? That's a laugh. Regardless of what people want to hear, he HAS drawn the Iraq war (that repugs wanted to continue for 100 years) to a close. His plans to end the Afghan War are serious enough that repugs fear them as well. Repugs see a HUGE difference between the two on foreign policy, even if you don't want us to.

Do you think the rest of the world will be unaffected if Twit gets in and starts WWIII with Iran? That could take this whole planet down several pegs.
 
 
0 # Ed 2012-10-20 07:08
Quoting Billy Bob:
Thank you. Spoken like someone who truly doesn't give a shit about Americans because you couldn't care less what happens to all of us....


PART1

Not true. I find myself empathising with a significant number of the kind of US citizens who subscribe to these pages, and that includes you. Indeed, this is the reason I bother to subscribe. Let me also add that in my view there is a difference between the State of the USA and its citizens, just as I see a difference between the State of Israel and its citizens. Here in the UK, Zionist conspirators level the charge of anti-Semite against anyone who criticises the State of Israel, and the dumb British masses fall for it every time, just like the dumb (present company excepted) US masses think that voting for a President will make any real difference. Clinton may have held back the fascist tide of Bushism, but it was well and truly released in 2000.

I agree, I do have a vested interest in seeing Obama win, but I would argue in the sense that whoever gains control of the USA’s unparalleled military industrial complex will affect the world in which I live one way or another.

CONTINUED IN PART 2...
 
 
0 # Ed 2012-10-20 07:09
Quoting Billy Bob:
Thank you. Spoken like someone who truly doesn't give a shit about Americans because you couldn't care less what happens to all of us....


PART 2

Again, I concur with you that Obama can attack Iran at anytime and that Romney, McCain, et al would love to discharge the first Hellfire from their bunker. But since you mention Iraq, isn’t it the case that Obama has run out of money so the draw-down was inevitable? Anyway, thanks to Uncle Sam and his crony Brit allies, Iraq is now full of mercenaries and paramilitaries killing with impunity so there is no need for normal troops.

No I don’t think the rest of the world will be unaffected if Romney wins. In fact I am pretty certain that Romney will continue the USA’s campaign of global slaughter, murder, assassination, execution, occupation and torture with total impunity. My point is that Romney will do it openly and proudly and brag about it, whereas Obama will do it quietly and agonise about it; just like Blair.
 
 
-1 # anoncommenter 2012-10-19 10:44
I live in a safe state--very red. And I am casting my vote for Rocky Anderson because, while there may be good reasons to vote *against* the republican party in swing-states, I have the opportunity to say with my vote that my conscience is for a much more progressive candidate. If we don't use this opportunity in safe states, then when will we be able to ever pressure the left to take progressive stands and stop the war-mongering, the selling out to Wall St, and the obliteration of our civil rights?
 
 
0 # BobbyL 2012-10-19 11:55
Like VoiceofReason61 3 I too live in New York state where Obama is all but certain to win, but rather than voting for Jill Stein of the Green Party I plan to vote for Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party. I think they are both excellent candidates who would be better than Obama but I think Anderson's eight years of experience as mayor of Salt Lake City makes him the better choice. And as a result he has some concrete evidence of being effective as a public official. Like Stein, he has proposed a number of thoughtful solutions to difficult problems (go to http://www.voterocky.org/solutions ). While I like many things that Obama has done too many other things leave you scratching your head. The increased drone attacks, kill lists, National Defense Authorization Act, going from a climate hawk to not mentioning global warming, clean coal, sending coal to China, offshore oil drilling, appointing Larry Summers as his chief economic adviser, etc. Four years of Obama is enough but unfortunately the Republican candidate is far worse.
 
 
+2 # nightwolfboy 2012-10-19 12:35
In September 1979, Springsteen and the E Street Band joined the Musicians United for Safe Energy anti-nuclear power collective at Madison Square Garden for two nights, playing an abbreviated set while premiering two songs from his upcoming album. The subsequent No Nukes live album, as well as the following summer's No Nukes documentary film, represented the first official recordings and footage of Springsteen's fabled live act, as well as Springsteen's first tentative dip into political involvement.
I just hope Bruce keeps up with this same sentiment and anti-nuke activism if there are any attempts at building NEW nukes in the U.S. in the next four years no matter who is President.
 
 
-1 # davejette 2012-10-19 14:06
Obama continues to wage imperialist wars on behalf of the 1% (who own both him and Romney). He increases the curtailment of civil liberties, as we sink closer and closer to a fascist state. (Romney would also, but the Democrats are more effective at doing this because they go slower and are somewhat less obvious.) Obama claims the right to murder anyone he chooses throughout the world, and to suspend the right of habeus corpus for Americans at his whim. I consider it unethical to vote for Obama, regardless of how much worse Romney is claimed to be. I support Rocky Anderson, but voting for Jill Stein would also be excellent. Especially in swing states, where our influence is magnified.
 
 
+1 # 4Justice 2012-10-19 14:23
Obama approved opening the Powder River Basin to more Coal extraction. Obama himself could have simply not signed. He fell all over himself in the debates to brag about opening more federal lands and Alaskan wilderness to oil drilling. We can thank him for accelerating climate chaos!

A vote for Obama is a vote for acceleration of climate chaos. I'm voting for Rocky Anderson, who has aggressively protected the environment for decades and reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 31% as mayor of Salt Lake City.
 
 
0 # dburdick 2012-10-19 15:15
Oust the “Commission on Presidential Debates”; hand the "Debate" back to the League of Women Voters for a real Debate, not a Debacle in Denver or Blue Smoke and Mirrors from Hofstra.

Jim Lehrer, Candy Crawley, and the other “journalists” should be ashamed of their role in this travesty.

Where is the truth the rest of us deserve? Where is the story of the usurpation of the “Debates” from the LOWV by Frank Fahrenkopf and Paul Kirk, the RNC and the DNC, in the mid 80’s? Of the contrived dog and pony show carefully, completely, and semi-secretly scripted and orchestrated by the Republocrats? Of their unrelenting measures to exclude the voice of any third party? Of David Cobb, Michael Badnarik, and 2 days ago, Dr. Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala, arrested as third party candidates protesting exclusion from the “Debate”? Of lawsuits by third party candidates Ralph Nader and Gary Johnson, likewise excluded? Of six big corporate donors semi-secretly funding the tax-exempt organization that is the CPD?

Why is the only option for the 99% to hear third party candidates with serious solutions to our critical issues, www.democracynow, afforded almost no attention by the Fourth Estate?

We are approaching a political cliff; at the bottom is Fascism. Our electoral process has been confiscated, along with our power and treasury, by the oligarchs behind the duopoly of Rombama.

www.voterocky.org/solutions
 
 
+2 # punch 2012-10-20 07:28
I agree with jstiles and others. For some reason nobody ever responds to my comments. Is it because you can't actually come up with a counter-argumen t? Here's what I wrote recently:

You're saying that it's pointless voting for something you actually believe in since they can't win anyway. But that's only the case if everyone thinks it is. If nobody believes a third party can win and so does not vote for it, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. In face it's akin to saying that one vote won't decide the election anyway, so you might as well stay home. This is true, as long as you're the only one following it. But as soon as many people start following it, it's not true anymore. Luckily there are quite a few (but not enough) people NOT following it when it comes to actually voting.

However, when it comes to voting third party, a groupthink prevails where most progressives just refuse to see the bigger picture.

In addition, although working between elections to strengthen a third party certainly is great, giving that party political capital both locally and nationally by actually voting for it WILL make a DIFFERENCE -- while doubling down on the "two factions of the corporate party" system will NOT. Some differences during the next four years, yes, but in the long run the two parties' power will be entrenched and the US will continue to move to the right, whether R or D the next four years.
 
 
-2 # Billy Bob 2012-10-20 08:38
I'll responnd to you. Actually, many of my above comments are already responding to you but you didn't bother to counter any of my arguments. Interesting.

Right now, according to electoral-vote. com, if the election were held today Twit would only need 22 more electoral to be President and start the war with Iran by late January.

If you want to make a multi-party system the way to do it is to CHANGE THE SYSTEM. By voting against the Democratic Party (this IS what you're doing), all you're doing is to replace one of the two parties with another one. Which one will it be? There are currently 3 other left-wing parties that I know of vying to be the one to replace the Democratic Party.

If you got your way we STILL wouldn't have a multi-party system. Our electoral process punishes the very idea. We'd have the repug party + a DIFFERENT party representing the left. Since this would be a party to include no moderates, it would generate about 10% of the vote to the repugs 90%.

Of course that's never going to happen. What we CAN do is make about 4 or 5 left-wing parties all compete for the 50% of the electorate that won't vote repug.

Who do you think will win ALWAYS, FROM THEN ON?

CONT.
 
 
-1 # Billy Bob 2012-10-20 08:43
CONT.

Now, let's assume we all ACTUALLY WANTED to elect Twit Romney by splitting our vote in 10 or 15 different directions (like you do):

There ARE ALREADY polls being taken EVERY DAY asking people who they plan to vote for in the coming election. How many people currently say they're going to vote for the Green Party, or the Rocky Anderson Party, or the National Potato Awareness Party?

Actually, only about 1-2% of the electorate plans to vote against both major candidates. Sorry, but THEM'S THE FACTS.

What do you plan to accomplish by taking the Presidency away from President Obama? War with Iran (what repugs want but Obama has held off)? Further federal "security" measures to monitor everything you say, do or think (what repugs want but Obama has held off), or further "austerity" measures to take even more money from the poor and what's left of the middle-class to divert it to the extremely rich (what repugs want but Obama has held off)?

----------------

Tell me: IF YOU WERE a republican plant, how would your strategic objective on this site be substantially different from anything you're trying to accomplish?
 
 
-1 # Billy Bob 2012-10-20 08:51
Additionally, do you normally wait until 2 days after an article is first uploaded to make your comments? Most viewers have already given up on this article and moved on. If you comment sooner like you just did I GUARANTEE you'll get a response.

Will I get a substantive response from you, since I replied to you just 5 hours after your comment was uploaded?
 
 
-1 # Billy Bob 2012-10-20 17:41
I came up with a counter-argumen t very quickly after you posted your comment. Where's your defense?

I also explained to you how the "groupthink" is really just a majority of liberals who actually DO see a bigger picture - one you're unwilling to acknowledge.
 
 
+2 # punch 2012-10-21 14:21
I'm sorry to say that yes, I am normally a few days behind in reading the articles here. And after posting my comment I went to bed, and haven't bothered checking any responses until now (also because I didn't think there would be any).

I don't think you responded to my first point at all, and only partially to my second point. I'll respond to that first. Lets assume, like you do, that a third party got a substantial amount of the votes. This would of course not mean that the Democratis party got no votes, or even less votes than the third party - certainly not on the first election where the third party got a substantial amount of the votes. So then we *would* have three parties. Yes, the Republicans would probably win (but not with 90%, rather with the same percentage as now), but it would majorly change the political landscape. Now the Democrats would actually have to do something to get the progressive vote. With the Democrats more progressive, the Republicans don't have to be as batshit crazy reactionary as they are now. What is actually happening, and has been for some decades, is that the Democrats move continually to the right and the Republicans do to; they have to to differentiate themselves from the Democrats. Voting R or D enforces and continues this process.

cont.
 
 
0 # punch 2012-10-21 14:22
Think about the 1980 or 1984 elections. People like you voted Democrat the keep Reagan out of the white house. Reagan now is to the left of Obama on most issues! But now we have to vote Obama to keep Romney out of the white house. Don't you see that this way of thinking just leads to less and less progressive politics?

One more thing about your argument that we would still have two parties. That scenario assumes that the Democrats got no or very few votes. If that were to happen, it must mean that those votes went to the third party instead, which would mean that the third party would be as big as the Democrats are now (not 10% as you said). Think about it.

My first point about groupthink you didn't actually respond to. You just said that not following this "groupthink" (according to me) would lead to a Republican victory, and that *that* is the bigger picture. I'd argue that framing this in terms of just this election and the *stated* difference between the two corporate candidates, is as far from the bigger picture as you can get.

cont
 
 
+1 # punch 2012-10-21 14:24
I know that very few people will vote third party. I know that most votes for them will take away votes for Obama. That was the whole premise for my argument. "Because almost nobody else will vote third party, I can't vote third party either." Self-fulfilling prophecy because of groupthink. If people followed that way of thinking to its logical extreme, nobody would bother voting at all. You haven't responded to this point at all.

If I were a Republican plant..? How the hell am I to respond to that? Seems like a sneaky way of undermining my argument to suggest that. I'll just say that I'm a big fan of Chris Hedges, so I guess you can assume that he's a Republican plant to.
 

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