You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

Article image
Robert Reich
NationofChange / Op-Ed
Published: Saturday 11 August 2012
The GOP is counting on America’s notoriously short-term memory to blot out the last time the nation put a Republican into the Oval Office, on the reasonable assumption that such a memory might cause voters to avoid making the same mistake twice.

Erasing W

Article image

As Bill Clinton is resurrected by the Democrats, George W. Bush is being erased by the GOP — as if an entire eight years of American history hadn’t happened.

While Bill Clinton stumps for Obama, Romney has gone out of his way not to mention the name of the president who came after Clinton and before Obama.

Clinton will have a starring role at the Democratic National Convention. George W. Bush won’t even be at the Republican one – the first time a national party has not given the stage at its convention to its most recent occupant of the Oval Office who successfully ran for reelection.

The GOP is counting on America’s notoriously short-term memory to blot out the last time the nation put a Republican into the Oval Office, on the reasonable assumption that such a memory might cause voters to avoid making the same mistake twice. As whoever-it-was once said, “fool me once …” (and then mangled the rest).

Republicans want to obliterate any trace of the administration that told America there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and led us into a devastating war; turned a $5 trillion projected budget surplus into a $6 trillion deficit; gave the largest tax cut in a generation to the richest Americans in history; handed out a mountain of corporate welfare to the oil and gas industry, pharmaceutical companies, and military contractors like Halliburton (uniquely benefiting the vice president); whose officials turned a blind eye to Wall Street shenanigans that led to the worst financial calamity since the Great Crash of 1929 and then persuaded Congress to bail out the Street with the largest taxpayer-funded giveaway of all time.

Besides, the resemblances between George W. Bush and Mitt Romney are too close for comfort. Both were born into wealth, sons of prominent politicians who themselves ran for president; both are closely tied to the nation’s corporate and financial elites, and eager to do their bidding; both are socially awkward and, as candidates, tightly scripted for fear of saying something they shouldn’t; and both presented themselves to the nation devoid of any consistent policies or principles that might give some clue as to what they actually believe.

They are both, in other words, unusually shallow, uncurious, two-dimensional men who ran or are running for the presidency for no clear reason other than to surpass their fathers or achieve the aims and ambitions of their wealthy patrons.

Small wonder the Republican Party wants us to forget our last Republican president and his administration. By contrast, the Democrats have every reason for America to recall and celebrate the Clinton years.

This article was originally posted on Robert Reich's blog.

Author pic
ABOUT Robert Reich


ROBERT B. REICH, one of the nation’s leading experts on work and the economy, is Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. Time Magazine has named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including his latest best-seller, “Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future;” “The Work of Nations,” which has been translated into 22 languages; and his newest, an e-book, “Beyond Outrage.” His syndicated columns, television appearances, and public radio commentaries reach millions of people each week. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, and Chairman of the citizen’s group Common Cause. His widely-read blog can be found at Robert Reich's new film, "Inequality for All" is available on DVD
and blu-ray, and on Netflix in February.

The problem every time a Bush

The problem every time a Bush is in the White House is the signal it sends to Wall Street, the big banks and the big corporations. It's basically, "Have a good time boys. Live it up. The sky is the limit. And don't worry about any interference from me. You have a friend in the White House." And so they live it up and have a good time. Then afterwards all the rest of us get to pay for it.

I quite agree with PHOTODOC.

I quite agree with PHOTODOC. The biggest turd in the punchbowl WAS Dick Cheney.

Don't forget the bushco crowd

Don't forget the bushco crowd and especially george, jr. They need to be prosecuted for lying us into Iraq, the uncounted deaths it caused, the horror of torture, and all the other lawbreaking actions they used. They cannot be forgotten because they must go down in history as the traitors to America they are.

All here who hate the 2 party

All here who hate the 2 party system and wish they could vote for a 3rd party should check out 'Instant Runoff Voting.'

With 'Instant Runoff Voting' , you can vote for your favorite without your vote helping your last choice as it is now. If all votes for Ralph Nader ended up with their second choice, Al Gore would have been President.

Check it out.

Unfortunately, your

Unfortunately, your assumption about Al Gore becoming president if Ralph Nader votes were redirected is probably in error. I campaigned heavily for Nader, and a large number of the other supporters were more anti-Gore, than anti-W. Most of our campaign material pointed out the hypocrisy of Gore's environmental record. His voting record in the senate was the best indicator of someone who suppported unregulated coal and oil production. I must admit, when Ralph relayed to us supporters that he realized he couldn't win, but still vote for him anyway to generate campaign funding for the Green party, I could not, and voted for W. At the time, he seemed like the least dangerous. We all make mistakes, but at least I learn from them.

I can only speak for myself,

I can only speak for myself, but as a two time voter for Nader (2000 & 2004), both Gore and Kerry were NOT my second choice in either instance. My hatred of the 1% extends to all of their puppets (including RonPaul).

Many great observations and

Many great observations and comments, but one name is conspicuously missing-- Dick Cheney. Bush might have been the official driver, but would have rolled the White House car over the first curb he passed, without the aid of possibly America's worst criminal ever. Yeah, as an environmental activist who gets out in the field where the environmental, health and economic tsunamis of the fossil fuel industries have also obliterated democracy, I'm not a huge Obama fan. Nor do I look back on Clinton (the man who let the coal industry violate the Clean Water Act uncounted times (before Cheney obliterated that dubious record) with great admiration. BUT, both Obama and Clinton were/are far better choices than anyone the Republicans have puked up.

For me, it's more about clean air, clean water, open land health care, human and gender rights, clean, renewable energy (and the wealth of sustainable jobs it provides), and the overall quality of life for us and our children and grandchildren.

Argue all you wish about the shortcomings of Clinton and Obama, but anyone wearing a big "R" is far, far worse. It's up to all of us to get behind the better choice, and hold his/her feet to the fire. OUR job!

How are we supposed to defeat

How are we supposed to defeat the 1% if we keep voting for their puppets?

Argue all you want about the differences between R's and D's, but if they both serve the 1% their "differences" are worthless to the worldwide struggle to preserve human rights, democracy, and the earth, for the generations to come.

Yes it IS our job to get behind the better choice and defeat the 1%...

So, if we stay the course of voting Bush out (like we mistakenly thought we'd done in 2008), then we will succeed in removing that black Romney-clone from the White House. RonPaul is too much like Romney for me, so I'm voting for Jill Stein because she is the only viable choice.

But voting for the expansion of Bush's ugliest policies (as Obama has proven he will continue to do -based on what he has done over the last 3 yrs) is NOT option for anyone with a shred of decency.

For the sake of our children and grandchildren, please stop voting for the 1%!

Good points, Photodoc.

Good points, Photodoc. Especially, the need to look long and at quality of life for future generations, which fundamentally centers on preserving basic rights and the environment.

I like to think that, had Obama been working with a responsible Congress, we would now be three years closer to addressing the Climate Change issue. Instead, we have made no progress and in fact continue deeper into this mess. In fact, homo sapiens ssp teapartyus appears hellbent on finding every carbon atom on the planet, binding it with oxygen, and storing it in the air we breathe. Crazy. I am confident you are aware, but in case some readers have not seen it, please see the chart at, or if you like data, check out the .xls or .pdf datasets at Let's not forget that historically, for the past 400,000 years (long before oil was tapped as an energy source), CO2 levels fluctuated on a 100,000 year cycle with peaks at approximately 300ppm ... and with near absolute certainty, will peak at 400ppm next summer. CO2 has steadily climbed 33% over the historical peaks in just the last 50-60 years. We are already WAY down the wrong path.

Obama, working with a responsible Congress, could help us to address the CO2 issue with an anthropogenic solution. But our Congress has too many fronting for oil interests, stuck denying that Climate Change is anthropogenic. Now, they are using these same tactics in this election - create Foxian 'controversies', foster confusion, pound home those repetitive lies, disillusion the voters - just like was done in the W-Cheney-Rove times.

Having said that, I also like to think that not all R's are bad. I earnestly believe that the party of Lincoln can embrace real conservatism, as it existed long ago, when it had virtue. But, the two present R's -Romney and Ryan - are clearly NOT the solution. And, absolutely, it is OUR job as responsible and concerned citizens to step up and be active.

The biggest part of doing

The biggest part of doing "OUR job" is knowing what is going on.

Obama's environmental record is heinous. Just take the example of coal:

...not to mention all the petitions I've signed to Obama asking him not to allow for more oil drilling when we have a perfectly viable solution to all our energy needs -called hemp. And Obama's fast-tracking of the Keystone XL pipeline, which NASA's senior climatologist James Hansen has carefully explained will be "game over" for the earth if allowed to continue.

In the last 3 years Obama has sealed our fate even more, down the path of no return...

Voting for Obama is NOT an option for anyone with a shred of decency!

Norman Allen's picture

I keep hearing this blame

I keep hearing this blame extended to Clinton for repealing Glass-Steagal. I am old, but my memory is CONGRESS voted to repeal it and Clinton signed it because he knew he did not have enough votes to uphold his veto. Now, the revisionist version is HE REPEALED IT. I would take Bill Clinton back in a second.

No one other than Bill

No one other than Bill Clinton, can be blamed for the choices that Bill Clinton makes. Regardless of what was going on in his head, it was Bill Clinton who knowingly gave his final signature to end the Glass-Steagall Act. And there is nothing "revisionist history" about that, whether you like it or not.

Kathleen: We agree that the

Kathleen: We agree that the repeal of Glass-Steagall was a critical failure, and I am not one to defend Bill Clinton (he does that well enough on his own), but would you please do a little research on the repeal and confirm whether or not Clinton had much of a choice for signing the repeal? The congressional votes I have found so far look an awful lot like he would have been wasting his time (and a veto) had he refused to sign. In that situation, seems difficult to pin blame on Clinton as if he had a choice.

Fighting for the people he

Fighting for the people he was elected to represent is NEVER a waste of time. He had a choice and he made it (just like he made with the WTO).

Absolutely. It was Phil

Absolutely. It was Phil Gramm, R-TX, who pushed this through the banking committee and sent to Clinton to sign.

The George W. Bush legacy is

The George W. Bush legacy is a permanent stain on the fabric of America which can NEVER be removed -- it ruined us for a generation at the very minimum as it was intended to do.

Agreed, and already, a

Agreed, and already, a significant percentage of the populous has been duped into thinking it was the black guy. We are a nation of morons.

Well, not all of us, Roybig.

Well, not all of us, Roybig. But I do understand your point!

I don't get the negative talk

I don't get the negative talk about NAFTA. Look at the statistics. It benefited the US economy, the US balance of payments, US workers and the US consumer.
Turned out the Mexicans had trouble competing with us, different from the fear spread before its passage.

Conservatives remember the

Conservatives remember the Bush years well. They voted for him enthusiastically, reelected him with fervor, applauded his decisions. We didn't hear one soundbite of criticism from the right over the the Bush year policies.

Now that the writing is on the wall, conservatives amend their support for Bush by saying, "Well, he wasn't a true conservative." As if that justifies their behavior.

So how can you reason with such child-like reasoning?

You can't, they don't get it, and they will continue to elect conservatives who stoke the misguided notion that abortion is murder, that somehow marital tradition is more important than equal rights, public anything is the devil, champion the notion that corporate power worship is Godly, and increase taxes for the poor and middle class while axing taxes for corporations and banks--because that rhetoric fulfills their emotional needs.

And then when it doesn't work out too well, "Well, "X" wasn't a true conservative."



' The Middle Class can kiss

' The Middle Class can kiss my ass,
I am in the Upper Class at last. '
-an old American ditty.

Great. Until the mob forms

Great. Until the mob forms with torches and pitchforks and starts coming in through your windows.

The republican party must

The republican party must want us to forget the previous Republican regime, (they have done a fair job of stifling Bush and Cheney) however, voters will not be able to forget them - simply because most of the Romney staffers and - now - his choice for Ryan for VP - have very tight ties to the Bush / Cheney campaign and their administration. Ok folks: Move along now, Nothing new to see, nothing new happening. This is just simply regurgitation politics....-

Mr. Reich should try

Mr. Reich should try following his own advice: Concern about short term memory or call it attention deficit disorder or even Gore Vidal's concept of the U.S. of Amnesia. Apparently he is suffering from the same personality disorder.

Thomas Baldwin

Yes, Reich did forget to

Yes, Reich did forget to mention the violations of human and civil rights begun or expanded under Bush and continued under Obama: GITMO, kangaroo trials, assassinations, warrant-less wiretaps, scans and pat-downs at airports. What do they not understand about the Fourth Amendment?

He forgot something? And

He forgot something? And you're not telling. Therefore how would one know what you are talking about?

My theory is that the

My theory is that the American people are not such great fans of Bill Clinton, the president who gave us NAFTA, the WTO, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and the Defense of Marriage Act, not to mention his squalid personal behavior. They're nostalgic for the Clinton Era, a time of relative peace and prosperity, when new innovations like the PC and the Internet not only helped create the prosperity for which Clinton is mostly erroneously credited, but also put a lot of people to work and gave a generation graduating from college a sense of hope for a bright future. Clinton did raise taxes to the point where we had a balanced budget by the end of his second term, credit him with that, but he was and still is representative of a political party that has self-castrated, dumping its historic ideals -- pro-labor, progressive taxation, pro-civil liberties, protecting the environment and the rights of minorities and women, and in general using government as a reasonably responsible mediator of the relationship between the individual and the state and the rapacious economic forces that are always ready to pillage -- in exchange for corporate campaign money. What was once barely a two party system is now a one party system with two reactionary wings, the only difference between them being that the Republicans are proud of it, and the Democrats hope nobody notices. Between them they have turned government into a malevolent generator of social and economic injustice. Mr. Reich's devotion to his old boss is touching, but that's no excuse for not being honest about the difference between President Clinton, then and now a vain preening excuse for a man, and the Clinton Era, the last decade when America was relatively prosperous and free.

Gene Ritchings, novelist

According to the Ministry of

According to the Ministry of Truth records (Fox News), there was only one George Bush presidency. Obushma (in Newspeak: Obama) came right after Clinton, Obama caused the 2008 crash, we are at war with Iran and always have been, and attendance at the 2 Minutes of Hate has increased more than projected over the 12 years of Obama. Now bend over and touch your toes Commrade, Big Brother has a big surprise for you in Nov. and you want to be in shape for that.

The GOP must pretend Bush#2 was never in office otherwise they would have to own the broken economy, deficit, unemployment, and everything else that happened prior to Mr. Obama being sworn into office in 2009.

If the Dems were really For the People, they would be naming names of the obstructionists in Congress that refuse to be the voice of the People in their districts and refuse to do the People's business. But Tit is really Tat and both are against We the People of the United States of America.

Trish House's picture

Very good.

Very good.

Robert Reich's blogs are

Robert Reich's blogs are always interesting but he continues as a loyal shill for the Democratic Party including Barack Obama. As Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration he must realize that both the passage of NAFTA and the repeal of Glass-Steagall were two of the biggest gifts to the corporatists and the 1% that could ever have been made. Thus, Mr. Reich has either no intelligence or no integrity to admit that. But I guess he enjoys making a living to keep propagating the lies. Thank you Mr. Orwell! But I haven't been a professor at Berkeley just a Professor of Physics and Management at lesser known schools and working in retirement at producing alternative blogs.

Thomas Baldwin, Ph. D.

Robert Reich is a shill for

Robert Reich is a shill for Obama? You've got to be kidding. You obviously haven't read that much of Reich over the past three years. He's often criticized Obama and the Dems. Plus he was out of the Clinton administration when Glass-Steagall was repealed.

Trish House's picture

Thank you.

Thank you.

Wait a minute! -Bill Clinton

Wait a minute!

-Bill Clinton played the single most biggest role in 2008's destruction of the world's economy by his ending the Glass-Steagall Act. Before that, the Glass-Steagal Act had done the most excellent job protecting our economy from criminal bankers since after the Great Depression, when it was first enacted.
-Bill Clinton's World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1999, allows corporate entities to rule against American law whenever they want. The WTO just recently ruled that American taxpayers owe genetically engineered food industries money for lost profits, due to our laws against GMO's. In short, the WTO can rule that American laws are unlawful if they interfere with profits. So, until the USA stops being a member of the WTO, the American public has to put WTO rulings above all American law and pay them with our own tax dollars.

-Today, is there any chance of Obama removing U.S. membership of the WTO? Does Obama's top secret involvement with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) answer your question? It should: No, there's no chance of Obama revoking U.S. membership of the WTO, especially when he is strengthening corporate rule with his TPP.

So we should not forget that, although Democrats (like Clinton & Obama) appear to always be going through 'hell,' fighting evil Republicans...etc.

The 1% tricks American voters all the time with their Dem/Repub puppet show. We need to realize that their evil candidates, like Romney and Bush, exist solely to scare us into accepting their "lesser" evil candidates, like Clinton and Obama as "the only realistic option" to prevent a worse evil from happening. Through this fear, the 1% has been tricking us into voting for the 1%, over and over again.

We've been falling for that damn puppet show for too long. If enough of us stop falling for that puppet show, we could overcome the 1%.

The 1% has controlled the White House for too long. If in 2012, the average American voter does not stop falling for 1%, and it's puppet show works it's fear-magic on us again, the 1% will remain in power for another 4 yrs. No amount of Occupy-protesters is a match for such massive stupidity that could allow that black Romney-clone to be voted into the White House, yet again -to spray more chemicals in their faces and imprison them indefinitely in their still top-secret FEMA camps...

I'm not falling for this updated "a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Romney" fear campaign insisted upon by moronic cowardly Obama supporters. After watching the last remnants of human rights, democracy, and the earth getting destroyed by Obama's love of Bush's ugliest policies, a much greater reality becomes crystal clear:

A vote for Obama is a vote for the 1%.

Trish House's picture

Right on Kathleen. In my

Right on Kathleen. In my opinion the only way to get their hands off our throats is throught land reform. The people must each have the right to a share of the land and the resources we need to make ourselves self sustaining and those rights must be inviolate. Only secure and well fed people can say no to the government manipulation, to the corporate slave jobs and to the military war jobs. It is not jobs we need for our survival it is security and freedom. For as long as we depend on jobs for our survival we will also support the machines that are built to choke the productivity, creativity and life out of us.

Kathleen: I see there are


I see there are many posting here who just want to curse both parties. Believe it or not, I know the frustrations and the sentiments. But Jill Stein, if she is running for president, hasn't a ghost of a chance and you know it. And I'm sorry, but I do think Romney's a much worse deal than Obama.

If we just sit on the sidelines and wish a plague on both parties, while having no practical alternative, then we're just spitting into the wind. I am a person who once voted for Dick Gregory for president, because he was the only anti-war candidate on the polls in New York, and I did wish to register my objection to the Vietnam War in some fashion. So I know what it is to make a statement by voting for someone who can't win.

I will vote for Obama but not because I'm wildly supportive of him (nor was I in 2008), but because I truly do dread the thought of a Tea-Party takeover of our federal government. Then we retired seniors, and the long-term unemployed, don't have a ghost of a chance. I do believe that, but obviously we differ about that. Or maybe you don't have as much at risk as some of us do.

I wish for many things in the political realm, but have only modest hopes for the future. If Willard gets in, it'll be because the votes of "Idiot America" are truly for sale, and that's a depressing thought for a man who once stumped for Eugene McCarthy and has always voted in every national election. Nothing could please me more than to see some viable third-party candidates running for national office, because if they're progressive, that's where I'll find myself at home. But I won't do anything, this year, to help the Tea-Party panderers of the rich become our ruling political voice. And that's the bottom line for me. If the Republicans were even moderate, I might stay at home, but they're not, and if Paul Ryan is the VP running mate of Willard, it shows me that the one-time "party of Lincoln" is now just a motley crew of extremists who want to screw Working Americans "for their own good."

Fuming and cursing isn't a very effective political action. It's just a sign of impotence. I will not help Willard get to the White House. I'd like to see Bernie Sanders, or someone of his stripe, make a run for the White House. Then my vote might really be up for grabs.

It's amazing how many people

It's amazing how many people forget that the landslide of 2008 (biggest in U.S. history?) was because an unprecedented high voter turn-out wanted Bush's policies to end. How's that for idiot America?

Fast forward to 3 years later, and all the ugliest Bush policies have been strengthened or expanded by Obama, and Obama supporters want us to betray everything we stood for in 2008 and vote for Obama again? How realistic is that? Why not spend that same energy mobilizing behind someone who actually is against the 1%, like Jill Stein?

3 points-
(how mobilizing behind Obama increases Romney's chances of winning:)

1 - Nothing brings out a low voter turn-out better than "lesser of two evils" elections: Average voter turn-out in "lesser of two evils" elections has never been higher than 50%.

2 - Republicans depend on low voter turn-outs to win elections.

3 - Conclusion: Even if the goal really is to defeat Romney (which distracts from the real goal of defeating the 1%), you cannot possibly defeat him by mobilizing behind a "lesser" evil like Obama because then you guarantee a low voter turn-out. So realistically, Jill Stein is the only chance we have at defeating Romney, not least because she is the only who can get votes from disillusioned former RonPaul supporters.

I always thought that people who supported Bush and Reagan were idiots, but I never imagined it possible that same people who screamed about defeating Bush would turn around 3 years later and support someone who has expanded all of Bush's policies. I did not see that coming, but clearly the 1% made an excellent choice in Obama.

As far as the belief that Jill Stein does not have a "ghost of a chance," what we all know for certain is that human rights, democracy, and the earth will NOT survive another 4 years of the 1% in the White House.

Trish House's picture

A horse wearing blinders will

A horse wearing blinders will only take the left road or the right road because it is all he can see. He doesn't know that there is a big, wide world around him full of the lush pastures that he loves because his master makes sure he doesn't get distracted. And there go you.

I guess you're addressing me,

I guess you're addressing me, TRISH. Well, I don't wear blinders, and I don't think it's just a choice between the right road or the left road. But I consider consequences of my actions, not airy-fairy New Age dreams of an ideal Utopia. It's all very well to wax poetic and talk of lush pastures and so on, but if I let an evil come to pass that I could have prevented, I'm not going to relieve my conscience by saying "Well, they're both no good, anyway." We're all responsible for what we do in this life.

By the by, I'm no doctrinaire card-carrying Democrat. I'm an agnostic of Buddhist leanings, an Army veteran, a committed environmentalist and believer in animal rights, and I hate it when the Democratic Party takes my vote for granted. Thus, my wish for a viable third-party. But in a critical election year like this one, 2 years after a conservative Supreme Court said it was all right for wealthy individuals and corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to buy elections, I can't sit on a fence and watch the pretty butterflies.

And why? For one thing, more Supreme Court appointments may come up in the next decade. It DOES MATTER who makes those appointments. I don't wish to be locked into seeing my children and grandchildren having to deal with more John Roberts sitting on this non-elective court that has so much power over our political lives. Lush pastures just won't make up for it. ( And I do love land; I had a nice 5-acre "ranchette" outside of Santa Fe for years and I sorely miss it now.)

Key word 'evil.' What

Key word 'evil.' What prevents evil the most is...

Which act allows evil to flourish more? Supporting a "lesser" evil -Obama, or supporting the greater good -Jill Stein? If all the people who voted against Bush's policies in 2008 were to mobilize against Bush's policies again in 2012... well... we all know this entails not voting for Obama, don't we?

But we know we have the numbers to do it, so why aren't we?

The only thing in the way of mobilizing behind Jill Stein is the fact that the media is owned by the 1% and "realistically" will not support Jill Stein the way it supported Obama in 2008? So, is that all it is? Are we really saying we can't do it if the 1% isn't behind us? How did "Yes We Can" turn into "No We Can't" get rid of George Bush Policies?

Remember that nauseating word "hope" in Obama's 2008 campaign? That was bad enough in 2008 whilst ignoring the same corporate entities behind Bush also supporting Obama's campaign. So, if you don't want to "sit on a fence and watch the pretty butterflies" again in 2012, don't fall for Obama's 'hope' thing again!

We all know the sole reason for believing Jill Stein is an "unrealistic" choice is because most all the media is owned by the 1%. That is the hardest part about mobilizing behind Jill Stein -overcoming the media blackout (but not just from the 1%-owned-media, but from so-called "progressive" media too). So the only thing holding us back from landsliding Bush's, well... now Obama's, policies out of the White House is because the media doesn't give us permission?

We were all on the same team in 2008 but the 1% is highly skilled at dividing us, and this 'fear of Romney' campaign might just pull it off for the 1% again in this regard. The 1% is pure evil, and Obama clearly represents the 1%. By falling for that 'fear of Romney' scam one more time, you will aid the 1% in their final destruction of human rights, democracy, and the earth.

It is quite simple- you cannot overcome evil by supporting evil, you only prolong it. Don't participate in that evil, don't vote for Obama.

Amen Kathleen. Your comment

Amen Kathleen. Your comment is superb!! Thank you and if you're on Facebook contact me as "Thomas Baldwin" in Biloxi, MS!! I want to be on your team!!

I got booted off fecesbook

I got booted off fecesbook for 30 days for "spamming" while I was working on my new 'Obama is the 1%' page. Since I was the only person that 'liked' my page, the only person I was spamming was myself? But I think something else could be at work here. Thanks anyway though.

Kathleen: I agree with your

Kathleen: I agree with your assessment of the mirror imagery of elite Dems and elite Reps. Shoot, I was fooled twice by Clinton (and still admire much of what he did, but was dismayed by a few other things), and fooled once by Bush (I voted against Gore, primarily due to his association with eight years of Clinton; I realized the W-mistake in early 2001). But, contrary to your view, I tend to see a vote for Obama is a vote for the maybe 2%, while a vote for Romney is a vote for the 0.1%. We have elites, and we have uber-elites, and all elites pander to the moneyed interests.

My heart wants to vote Green, but I would not this year. At this point in time, the Koch money and the Rove PAC money would be prudently invested in some peripheral promotion of a Green candidate, so as to siphon off enviro-leaning voters, most of whom would leave Obama for Stein. Obama's moderate centrism, noticeable shortly after the inauguration, has been at the expense of many things environmental, and has stirred lots of enviro dissatisfaction. I hope that Stein can nudge both Romney and Obama toward a longer view (and a focused debate) on climate change and the absolute necessity of responsible policy toward a healthy and sustainable environment. The thought of these crud-ites (in both parties) jetting back and forth for their campaigns while spewing that much more carbon into our atmosphere, makes me ill.

Regarding Glass-Steagall ... are there any readers with precise knowledge about the repeal, who will kindly enlighten as to how the repeal came to be? I do consider this one of Clinton's bads, though I frankly do not know if he was a supporter or felt he had to sign it and could not veto. It looks like the key legislation was Graham-Leach-Bliley, passed in November 1999. Passage was overwhelming by both the Senate and the House. I did a little Google searching to see the Senate vote was 90-8; no votes included Dems Boxer, Wellstone, Feingold , et al, and only one Republican: Shelby, Interestingly, John McCain abstained, but then he was a maverick. Senate leader was Strom Thurmond (R), who left the Senate at age 101, and to his credit did not become a lobbyist. A google search indicates he was a Dem until 1964, when he joined the GOP over segregation issues. In the House, the vote was 362-57, with 15 not voting. Dennis Hastert was GOP House Speaker (google indicates he followed Gingrich, and was succeeded by Pelosi), who retired in 2007 to work as a lobbyist. All of these details raise more than a few red flags about the history and evolution of modern American politics. So... can anyone enlighten the rest of us, as to just how much credit for the repeal of Glass-Steagall can be attributed to Bill Clinton?

As long as we continue to be

As long as we continue to be motivated by fear, we will be continue to ruled by the 1%.

Jeff, haven't you understood

Jeff, haven't you understood yet that we go through this insanity crap of buying into the two party corporatist bullshit every four years?? Both political parties are controlled by a relatively small percentage of the 1% and we are manipulated by the corporate media like lemmings marching to the sea. This is by definition "insanity", no different from being locked into a habit by drugs or alcohol. If we don't break that cycle then we are all doomed. Try reading George Orwell's "1984" to break the habit!

Thomas Baldwin

Trish House's picture

You are so correct. What do

You are so correct. What do you propose instead?

Doc, I agree with you,

Doc, I agree with you, regarding the 2-party BS. I have been voting since the 1980 election, and it has always been a matter of selecting the lesser of two lousy choices. Let's agree that Romney is the "lousierest" (if I may coin a word that reflects my frustration). I do not see a viable third-party candidate yet, but hope to see one in the near future. Something has to change...

Orwell's "1984": great book. All the PAC money is sure painting lots of tall barns this year, but breaking no bad habits.

Yes, Greg Hilbert, the GOP IS

Yes, Greg Hilbert, the GOP IS the great evil!

It may give small comfort to

It may give small comfort to know that History will remember the monsterous mistakes created and enacted by George W. If Romney is elected President by folks who are blinded by lies and stupidity because they refuse to acknowledge the past mistakes of Bush and his crowd.

Comment with your Facebook account

Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...