Few new Jobs Means Obama Loses in 2012

In the real world electoral trenches Obama is defeated in 2012 due to the lack of jobs, as long as the Republicans don't dominate a total nut case like Palin or a southern Redneck like Huckabee. Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, Indiana, Virginia etc. were all states that elected Obama for one reason: to create jobs. None of these states will vote for Obama in 2012 if there are no new jobs to speak of, as long as the Republicans nominate someone who sounds sensible to desperate job-seekers, like Pawlenty from Minnesota or Romney from Massachusetts, as seems likely. Obama is toast as long as the Republicans don't nominate a complete looney bird.

And I am sorry, but regardless of how much money Obama rakes in after he loses in 2012, he still goes down in history as a one-term President, which is politically a failure regardless of anything else.

Jimmy Carter lost his re-election for basic economics reasons also; for him it was at least as much due to inflation as it was due to unemployment.

Unlike Carter who was swept away by forces beyond his control, with Obama being defeated in 2012 serves him right, because he alone decided that the banksters and the rich people in general were far more important than the tens of millions needing decent incomes from jobs.

It was disturbing when Obama started blaming black poverty on black people not able to maintain families and so forth. It became devastating when Obama started blaming white poverty on white people deciding they need a job because they can't make their own nicely profitable business out of thin air. It seems that in Obama's twisted, right-wing mind, you don't absolutely have to have a job, because you should be able to automatically generate enough income from your own business for you and your family to live on. It's your fault and your problem if you can't.

But as anyone knows who knows anything about business, and/or anything about the current state of the economy, Obama's real views (which he dares not spell out in full in public) are totally unrealistic and are utter garbage. So good riddance to Obama in advance; I'm tuning him out until his 2012 concession speech.

I don't have a clue why the author was taken in by the theatrics of the 1-day mini "summit"; why he states that Obama is open to real jobs programs. There were several reports coming from "well-placed Obama insiders" last week indicating that in January Obama plans to announce deficit reduction will, beginning in 2010, be far more important than any jobs programs. In Obama World, there are going to be a lot of dead people instead of employed people. Obama is literally killing off some of his own would-be voters.

As for progressives, if they don't realize they need to unite behind a new party now, I suppose they never will, so the US will be permanently a very right wing country. As with all permanent right wing countries of history, this means nothing but misery, death and destruction for increasing millions.

The above was in response to this article.

Many Democrats and Many "Liberals" are Foolish Wimps on the Take

It’s a dilemma because as Hedges says most "liberals" are foolish wimps who vote Democratic and regret it later. They are too smug, lazy, on the take, or just plain dumb to support a new party that could win votes, the way they did in Canada during the depression and during World War 2 when the New Democratic Party was formed. (This is the party that brought economical health care to Canada. Were it not for the New Democratic Party, the US might not be the only important country without health care, as Canada might be still without it too.)

Now is obviously the time (it's probably the last chance, actually, have you checked the true poverty, homelessness, and unemployment numbers lately?) for liberals to abandon the Democrats and start a new party, one that is not thought of as one issue like the Greens by the way. But as we know the liberals are foolish wimps, who in a hard world deserve every bad thing that happens to them while they live in a relentlessly right wing society.

By contrast, anyone who has moved on past all of that stuff in the slow lane: the Democrats, the foolish liberals, and everything associated with them, we deserve awards, medals, real freedom, and prosperity. But obviously, we are not likely to get those things regardless of what we do in a failed society with a collapsed ecnonomy.

So it is mandatory, we need that New Democratic Party (or the equivalent) as Canadians, who are neither foolish nor wimpy, demonstrated many decades ago.

The above was in response to this article.

Wait for the 2012 Concession Speech and Tune out the Others

There is no need to listen to speeches by Bush III (Revenge of George, starring Barack Obama) anymore unless you want to be depressed. Just wait for his 2012 concession speech and listen to that one.

What is the difference between Obama and Romney or Pawlenty? Almost nothing in terms of policy and the real situation in the country. But at least with Romney or Pawlenty, many will have their guard up against being totally played by right wing contracts and policies. Whereas with Obama, you have all of these pathetic fooled people who think, for example, that the health deform will be a net plus.

For every internet article on why the Afghanistan policy or the health deform will fail, there are what, half a million? people who think these proposals are "necessary" and "not so bad". You know, its really disturbing to live in a country loaded with people so easily fooled by the likes of Obama.

The above was in response to this article. about how Obama's Afghanistan policy is foolish posturing that is doomed to failure.