CPIR Statement on the Re-election of Barack Obama

by serf Sat Nov 10, 2012 21:39

Was it by appointing Wall Street plutocrats Larry Summers and Tim Geithner to oversee economic policy? By vastly expanding the Wall Street bailouts begun by George W. Bush? By doing nothing to effectuate the obviously needed breakup of the too-big-to-fail banks? By hiring the warmongering congressman/investment banker Rahm Emanuel to be his chief of staff? By not prosecuting any of the high level Wall Street executives whose fraud crimes so badly damaged the economy? By his betrayal of Elizabeth Warren, who should have been appointed to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? By lending no support to the much needed student loan-forgiveness bill, H.R. 4170, introduced by Congressman Hansen Clarke of Michigan? By failing to deliver on his campaign promise to create a ten billion dollar foreclosure prevention fund?

Was it by implementing the completely irresponsible two-percent cut in the Social Security payroll tax? By proposing to reduce the cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security? By publicly agreeing on the need to lift the payroll tax cap and then failing to work for it?

Was it by implementing the pro-corporate, anti-union “race to the top” education program? By abandoning the struggle, which he had previously (rhetorically) supported, for the Employee Free Choice Act? By opting to provide no meaningful assistance to the effort to recall union-busting Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker? By breaking his campaign promise to work toward banning the permanent replacement of striking workers? By promptly forgetting his campaign promise to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour? By pushing for the Trans Pacific Free Trade Agreement, which The Guardian (UK) aptly dubbed “NAFTA on Steroids?” By his implementation of a truly Draconian policy of deporting illegal immigrants, a good number of them poor precisely because of NAFTA, which candidate Obama deceitfully promised to renegotiate?

Was it by reauthorizing Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy? By doing absolutely nothing to decrease the obscene and outrageous military budget? By continuing the expensive and ridiculous war on drugs? By doing nothing to fulfill his campaign promise to fight the pernicious influence of the giant agribusiness corporations? By reneging on his 2008 campaign promise to eliminate all income taxation for senior citizens making less than $50,000 per year? By devoting almost no attention to the problem of poverty, the rate of which has increased on his watch? By pursuing public policies that contributed substantially both to increasing the number of millionaires by over one million and to record corporate profits during what has been, for most Americans, a time of declining financial security?

Was it by proposing to increase the eligibility age for Medicare? By abandoning single payer national health insurance, an idea that for years he had claimed to support, then as President neglecting to fight for a public option after having campaigned in support of the idea in 2008? By signing into law an essentially Republican health care bill, not merely in its genealogy but in its provisions, the main effects of which are, or will be, to increase the power, profits, and customer base of the parasitical health insurance companies?

Was it by not lifting a finger to oppose the special interests that stand in the way of any meaningful campaign finance reform? By choosing to hold his Party’s 2012 national convention at the Bank of America Arena in a “right-to-work” state? By giving the prime speaking slot at the convention to Bill Clinton, who, in the words of author Peter S. Goodman, “allowed Wall Street to turn itself into Las Vegas-on-the-Hudson?”

If you think this interrogatory indictment of Obama represents powerful evidence that our current president could hardly care less about social justice unless he were a full-fledged sociopath, imagine what the picture would look like if we added questions pertaining to foreign relations, war, civil liberties, and the environment.

(excerpt from a counterpunch article: http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/11/07/atheism-and-the-...blem/ )

by non voter Thu Nov 08, 2012 22:06

in the american system, it is possible to have more votes than the other person yet still lose the election. The "all or nothing" "first past the post" system is not like our system. It needs to be changed if the american people want proper proportional representation. However, clearly what most needs to be changed is the huge sponsorship of candidates by corporations and the huge difficulty of alternative candidates being heard on a captive media.

This election was just a farce, whichever candidate won.

by An Drighneán Donn Thu Nov 08, 2012 18:37

Given the errors that we have seen in recent US elections, I'd say that one vote, or even 1% of the total, is anything but a clear victory - particularly given that voter suppression was well over 10% in this election. But, of course, the brainwashed victims of RTÉ etc. cannot be expected to understand such matters. Simple black and white, heroes and villains, is all that RTÉ can handle.

by Clear Victor. Thu Nov 08, 2012 14:57

If you win by just one vote it is a "clear victory".

(One doesn't expect Communists to understand such complicated maths though.)

by Elric Thu Nov 08, 2012 14:23

Obama Re-elected - The Fightback Begins

By Billy Wharton

Tonight, Barack Obama was declared the winner of the U.S. Presidential election. Obama ran a centrist, lackluster campaign that was fueled by an avalanche of campaign donations from corporate America. The losers were poor and working class people all over the country. Although, Mitt Romney was the other corporate funded candidate in the race, it will be regular Americans who will have to live with repercussions of a second Obama presidency. Over the next four years, the administration will continue to extend the damage it has initiated since 2008. ...

http://www.countercurrents.org/wharton71112.htm

Billy Wharton is a writer, activist and co-chair of the Socialist Party USA. His articles have appeared in the Washington Post, the NYC Indypendent, Spectrezine and the Monthly Review Zine. He can be reached at whartonbilly[at]gmail[dot]com

by Elric Thu Nov 08, 2012 14:13

The absence of a viable working class alternative means American voters are treated as fools, argues Paul Demarty

So the interminable US election process has finally ended with the re-election of Barack Obama. The electoral college numbers made it look rather more convincing than it actually was - Obama captured about 51% of the popular vote, which translated into 60% of the final score.
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/937/return-of...onary

by Elric Thu Nov 08, 2012 11:53

Agree with you. Only difference is regarding US womens rights & US LGBT rights. Its also worth noting that most of the tea party loons held their seats in the House.

by An Draighneán Donn Thu Nov 08, 2012 11:42

As you admit yourself, Thomas Jefferson, Senate and Congress are not the same thing, ergo, the conjunction "Congress and Senate" is valid.

by An Draighneán Donn Thu Nov 08, 2012 11:38

Its suitable that you should chose the name of a man whose wealth was based on slavery. Even though he hypocritically claimed to be against slavery, he himself enjoyed ALL the pleasures of being a slave owner.

As for the NKVD, no doubt they thought that those who they arrested had also broken the law, and had got all the due process they needed. Ask Leonard Peltier about the quality of US "justice."

by An Draighneán Donn Thu Nov 08, 2012 11:32

Most African countries also have Black leaders, who murder and imprison Black people on the orders of the Anglo-American corporations, and steal their wealth. So, it is no wonder that the Anglo-Saxon elite has chosen a Black man to front their regime of terror in the USA.

by serf Thu Nov 08, 2012 05:49

actually, the US has the highest per capita prison population in the world.

Imprisoning people for profit is one of their main corporate industries. Wonderful country!

As for tweedledumb winning the election rather than tweedledee. Big whoop! Same murdering of brown people, same 68+ billion dollars in weapon sales, same sanctions killing innocent Iranians, same supporting and arming of nutjob terrorists in other people's countries, same tacit support of the greedy financial terrorism of wall street. Same old shit, no matter which of these clowns got elected.

It was all nothing but theatre. The american people had little real choice. The only other choice of candidates, Jill Stein and Johnson were not even allowed into the main debate and Jill Stein was arrested outside and tied to a chair for 8 hours. A presidential candidate!! These other candidates were ignored by the MSM so nobody even knew who they were. Ironically, RT was the only channel to give them airtime to debate and when they spoke, you realised why: They addressed the REAL issues, not the fake theatre ones.

Not that it mattered much because the braindead majority just does what the tv soundbites tell them to. i.e vote for tweedledumb because tweedledee is even worse. So they do.

Nice democracy. Unfortunately we have to deal with the consequences of their stupid decisions for another 4 years.

by Thomas Jefferson Wed Nov 07, 2012 19:51

The Senate is part of Congress, which also comprises the house of Representatives.

"This is a system of terror against a population scarcely seen in the history of man".

Absolutely - locking up criminals convicted under due processt leaves the Chekists, NKVD/KGB and Mao in the h'apenny place.

by An Draighneán Donn Wed Nov 07, 2012 14:42

I see the idiots in RTÉ are describing Obama's win as a "clear victory." Ya, 1%. Actually, about 10% of the adult population of the US are not even allowed to vote.