"I don’t see how anyone who confronts Obama’s record with clear eyes can enthusiastically support him. … How can you vilify Romney as a heartless plutocrat unfit for the presidency, and then enthusiastically recommend a guy who held Bradley Manning in solitary and killed a 16-year-old American kid? If you’re a utilitarian who plans to vote for Obama, better to mournfully acknowledge that you regard him as the lesser of two evils, with all that phrase denotes. … Keen on Obama’s civil-libertarian message and reassertion of basic American values, I supported him in 2008. Today I would feel ashamed to associate myself with his first term or the likely course of his second. I refuse to vote for Barack Obama."
Conor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic. (via washingtonpoststyle)
i definitely view him as being the lesser of two evils, but more so a President with potential. still, can anyone argue that Mitt Romney is better? i mean, with a straight face and without reference fictions propagated by Fox News or Rush Limbaugh? in the end though, it’s Congress that’s the problem. why won’t anyone acknowledge or push this? Congress is where most of the blame lies, and i don’t mean obstructionist Republicans. i mean the failure of the premiere lawmaking body of the American government unable to do its job, overwhelmed, either willingly or reluctantly, with pressure from outside sources, lobbyists, special interests, staking their futures on monies from these people and then returning the favor. where are the interests of the American people in this Congressional mix? they are by the side of the road way back there in the 70s, it seems.
"Whoever wins Election 2012, Americans will wake up the next morning losers, for at minimum it will be another four years living under a president likely to prove a disaster for the country, at least if you think that another four years of cronyism, extrajudicial killing, growing deficits, imprisoning scores without charges or trial, waging extra-constitutional wars, and spying on innocent Americans is a disaster. I don’t mean to suggest, partisans of one stripe or another, that there is no difference between Obama and Romney. If you could run parallel versions of America under each man I am sure the outcomes would be different in many specifics, and also in aggregate: One would be really bad for the country, the other would be even worse for it."
Conor Friedersdorf, in a masterful essay decrying both Obama and Romney.
the key is Congress, not the President
"Considering members of Congress “on an individual basis,” Kerrey says, “you should presume patriotism.” But he thinks congressional rules favor partisan gridlock: “I am campaigning to amend the Constitution to abolish both the Republican and Democratic caucuses. . . . We should not allow Congress to organize by party. How can you work with someone who is raising money to defeat you? The rules of Congress have to change, and they can’t be trusted to rewrite their own rules.”"
— great thoughts!
(Source: Washington Post, via jgreendc)
Mr. Speaker, today I rise quite saddened by the news that the Susan G. Komen race for the cure has made a political decision. A fine nonprofit that I have been associated with for years, I have run in the Susan G. Komen race for the cure, I have walked in the race for the cure, I have been the emcee at a number of events locally that they have held, so I have been a big booster of the Susan G. Komen organization, but not anymore. Their announcement yesterday that they are no longer going to fund any organization that is being investigated by a federal, state, or local body means that Planned Parenthood is no longer going to receive $600,000 a year. Now, ironically yesterday the Komen organization also announced and with great concern in a statement that the dismal rate of breast cancer screening with women who do not have insurance is something like 38.2%. Last year the Planned Parenthood organization was responsible for over 700,000, 700,000 breast cancer screenings for women who are poor, for women who don’t have insurance, for women who seek to get the health care they get through Planned Parenthood. So over the last five years there have been four million breast cancer screenings by Plant Parenthood. Komen has funded about 170,000 of them through Planned Parenthood. So what does this mean? Well, I guess it means that Susan G. Komen has decided to become a 501-c-4 because no longer did they want to be providing nonprofits, they want to become a political advocacy group. Last time I checked, we were all presumed innocent until proven guilty and we look to investigations in the federal judicial branch, we look to investigations by the U.S. attorney or the district attorney. Far be it for us to rely on the House of Representatives holding a hearing as being emblematic of justice because oftentimes it’s a political sandbox. Now, this investigation is one that has been called on by Mr. Stearns who is the Subcommittee Chair of Energy and Commerce on Oversight. The hearing has never been held. So why would Susan G. Komen take the remarkable step of saying they are no longer going to fund Planned Parenthood? I suppose when we review NIH and bring them under some investigation that they will stop funding NIH to the tune of $1 million, or I suppose that when we have a pharmaceutical company that we bring to the hill to ask them questions about a particular activity that they will stop accepting sponsor money from that particular pharmaceutical company. All of you across this country that feel that Susan G. Komen should stick to what it knows and that is breast cancer research and breast cancer screening and support and promote those activities by organizations that do the research and do the screening, I ask you to call them at 1-877-465-6636 and tell them that you want them to stick to what they know. Let’s not make this a race to the political bottom. I yield back.
THE SENATE: Convened at 10 with plans to hold dueling votes at 3 that will kill off both the Obama transportation jobs proposal ($50 billion for public works construction and $10 billion for a new infrastructure loan fund) as well as the Republican alternative, which is to extend many highway and mass transit programs through September 2013 — while blocking or reversing a range of unrelated federal regulations. Advancing either measure will require 60 votes; none of the 47 Republicans will break ranks and vote for the president’s plan and only a couple of the 53 Democratic caucus members will back the GOP idea.
Senators will also confirm two new federal trial judges: Scott Skavdahl, a Wyoming magistrate, and Richard Andrews, Delaware’s top criminal prosecutor.
THE HOUSE: Convened at 10 and will start legislative business at noon, with plans to take up two more measures that would help small businesses raise capital. One would ease SEC regulations on the advertising of new securities. The other would allow companies to sell $2 million in stock using “crowdfunding” methods without registering with the SEC. Passage of the second bill may be put off until tomorrow, because today’s last vote is promised before 7.