What's Presidential?

13 posts / 0 new
Last post
eseltzy's picture

Romney doesn't bank exclusively in the U.S., nor does he bank exclusively with U.S. Banks. 

So what?  It's not illegal (or so the anti-Obama crowd says).  I agree (assuming he did his offshore banking legally, which for now we'll so stipulate)

I've just reviewed the Constitution.  It turns out there's a whole lot of stuff that's also not unconstitutional or illegal and are not disqualifiers to becoming President of the U.S. 

     You can have dual citizenship for instance! 

     And, get this, you don't have to live in the U.S. 

     It turns out, you don't even have to like the U.S. or it's people. 

     You can have unlimited investments in foreign businesses. 

     If you control enough of congress (and therefore don't have to worry about impeachment) you can make decisions that directly and immensely profit companies and people who fund your political endeavors. 

The question isn't whether it's legal or not.  The question is whether it's Presidential.  If past is prologue, I'll take the one who has lived their life to benefit America and Americans.  The one who has always championed the many, not the few.  The one who doesn't think about what's legal when deciding where to put his money or his investments.  The one who has never profited by removing assets from America or exploiting Americans.

Hmmm.....who to choose.  This is a tough one <wink>


JTaylor's picture
Dr. Jill Stein, Green Party

Dr. Jill Stein, Green Party nominee for President of the United States.

Better than Obama, infinitely better than Romney.

anonymous green
You've been smoking that

You've been smoking that hemp, instead of finely grown medical cannabis.

A vote for a Green is a vote in the toilet of no chance in hell, except to put Romney over the top, just like the votes for Nader brought us Bush.

Please don't fall for this again.


JTaylor's picture
Perhaps we shouldn't fall for

Perhaps we shouldn't fall for the lie that we are only allowed to choose from either side of the same coin.  It's a bit of a Catch 22 to say that the Green Party doesn't have a chance in Hell.  No one votes for the Green Party because they think they don't have a chance, so the Green Party doesn't have a chance because no one votes for them.  That's the whole scam.

If everyone voted for the Green Party, the Green Party would have a chance.  Instead, we're sold this idea in the corporate press that "voting for a third party is a waste and will split the vote, giving the election to the opposition."

Why does divisive party loyalty drive our elections instead of voting for the person who will do the best job for all People?  Because there isn't meant to be a majority rule in the US.  This country has a one-party system pretending to be a two-party system, and both parties work more for the 1% than for the People.  The tactic of "divide and conquer" dates back even before Sun Tzu.  As long as the 1% Party keeps the People fighting each other over Democrat vs. Republican, Red vs. Blue and other such nonsense, they're free to do what is best for the 1% Party and their financiers.  Either way, Democrat or Republican, corporate agents get elected.

Let's see the half of Americans that currently don't vote because they can't stand either of the 1% Party's nominees, vote for the Green Party as a protest vote.  That would give Obama 25% of the popular vote, Romney 25%, and Jill Stein 50%.  In a Democracy, who would win?

eseltzy's picture
Romney. This isn't 2068, it's


This isn't 2068, it's 2012.  Past is prologue here.  Ralph Nadar was yesterday's Jill Stein.  Read a book.  Nadar, with your argument, gave us George Bush.  How'd that go?  Maybe you don't see a difference, but I do.  And a huge difference. 

When the Green Party has more than a 5% share of America's support, come pitch it again.  Meanwhile, be very careful about your good intentions and their unintended consequences.  Your vision IS NOT A NEW ONE.  Your candidate can't attract support from Romney supporters, only from Obama supporters or dissaffected voters.  I don't care to give the supreme court to the right for the next 30-40 years by syphoning votes from Obama.  And, I never voted for Clinton...in case you think I'm just a fall-in-line democrat. 

In 2012, a vote for Green (for President) is a vote for Romney (not counting an in-the-weeds discussion of electoral politics).  If you truly think there's no negative consequence to having a Romney presidency over an Obama 2nd term, then I understand your view.  But it's not for me, not this time.

JTaylor's picture
Nader gave us Bush, and Perot

Nader gave us Bush, and Perot gave us Clinton.  The argument could be made for either side.  It makes sense that voting for one person means less votes for another, that's democracy.  But We the People don't have a real democracy if we're forced to vote for the lesser of two evils for no other reason than because they aren't as bad as their opponent.

Republicans know how much Mitt Romney sucks.  They are not voting for Mitt Romney.  They are voting against Barack Obama.  You could put a tie on a cheese sandwich and Republicans would vote for it over Barack Obama.  That's basically what they've done.  And most Democrats are voting for Barack Obama because they can't stand the idea of Romney becoming President.  It doesn't matter that Democrats and Independents are unimpressed with Obama's job so far, he's not Romney so he gets the vote.  Either way, we are still beholden to a system where we have to choose one of only two candidates who are not looking out for our interests as much as they should be.

Given the choice between Obama and Romney, who would not screw America over as badly?  Obama, of course.  Mitt Romney's only life experience is taking something over, gutting it for personal gain, and then abandoning it.  He did it to every company he took over at Bain, and he will do the same thing to the United States of America.  That's all that he knows how to do.

Personally, I want to see Barack Obama win and finally be the President that we elected him to be.  Like he said to the Russians, "I'll have more flexibility after the election."  Perhaps he will show that same flexibility to the majority of impoverished Americans instead of always trying to appease the whining, filibustering Republican infants in Congress.

If Obama doesn't have to worry about playing politics to get reelected, then he can do radically beneficial things to enact the "change" that he promised.  He could sign an executive order declassifying marijuana as a Schedule 1 "dangerous" narcotic and allow American hemp production to create thousands of jobs in every state.  This one act would eventually rearrange the entire global marketplace in favor of the world's working poor.

That will most likely not happen but we're supposed to have "hope," right?  In my opinion, its a better reason to vote for Obama than, "At least he's not Romney."

eseltzy wrote: If you control

eseltzy wrote:

If you control enough of congress (and therefore don't have to worry about impeachment) you can make decisions that directly and immensely profit companies and people who fund your political endeavors. 

I understand you specifically mentioned impeachment; however, the opposition can have 100% of both chambers of Congress and the President (at least a GOP one) can still dole out the goodies to his benefactors, through hiring regulators who will not enforce regulations (or not hiring regulators at all), likewise with the United States Attorneys.

eseltzy's picture
Indeed.  Ergo, the question

Indeed.  Ergo, the question must be "What's Presidential?"  Not merely, "What's Legal?"  There's some extension of the "it's not illegal to bank offshore" argument that would offend many if not most of the "anybody but Obama" crowd.  However, not many of them will excercise the grey matter that much.

JTaylor's picture
Bilingualism and

Bilingualism and multilingualism should be Presidential qualities.  To have at least an elementary understanding of at least one foreign language is not only admirable, but extremely beneficial in foreign relations.

Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico and Mitt's son Craig is fluent in Spanish, but the very small amount of Spanish that Mitt Romney has learned comes out in the Whitest of White accents.  If Mitt Romney can't even get a grasp on Spanish which is intertwined with his family heritage, there is no hope that he will understand other world cultures and customs that are even more unfamiliar to him.  His recent foreign fundraising trip was evidence enough that he doesn't have a clue about anything other than himself, and it's hard to believe that he even knows himself given the amount of times he's switched political positions.

Some Republicans tried to accuse President Obama of treason for bowing to Saudi and Japanese royalty, but at least President Obama made an effort to learn the formal greetings of foreign dignitaries.  President Obama can at least try to speak other languages in an authentic accent.  It shows to the rest of the world that not all Americans are self-absorbed Neanderthals, and that some of us actually want to learn and communicate on a global level.  Meanwhile, Mitt Romney hasn't even made the effort to learn from his own family.  For Americans to prove to the world that we are not the Great White Satan, we must learn about other cultures, especially since many of those other cultures created the United States of America in the first place.

Mitt Romney is the most pathetic candidate in modern times, and he will be an even greater shame and a more historic disaster than George W. Bush if he wins the election.

I don't think repubs waste

I don't think repubs waste their votes on libertarian candidates.

Pardon me while I smoke some

Pardon me while I smoke some of that "hemp" so I can get in on this "discussion."

OK, now focus people.  The "presidential" is both your idealism/practicality balance, it is your democracy/empire reality that the only essential quality for the screening process is ability to front for the empire.  GOPimps qualify by nature and can be poor excuses for human beings as long as they serve the script.  Reform Emperors must be pliable enough to avoid standing up against certain core powers while they are allowed to correct some of the crap that the toadies and power-mad do in their incompetence as governors.

Clinton managed a much better empire than did either Bush.  Pappy was an Old Pro and his son an ignoramus, but they both were Cheneyed into going PNAC.  Bill, on the other hand, found ways to ease some of those tensions and much as I detested the embargo of Iraq, he was not trying to "shock and awe" to steal the oil.  But, he was also not confronting the question of empire and the size of the Pentagon budget, and he was "triangulating" his way to concessions in the name of compromise.

For the Imperial office of the Presidency, it matters that you not only have knowledge of the world but that it correlate with a global perspective rather than with a nativist narrative.  So far, Romney appears to be another Dubya without the social grace.  He is operating out of an essential lack of curiosity about others inherent in insecure narcissists.  I have no idea what happened to him in childhood, but I do know that in his one, freshman, year at Stanford, he was known derisevely as "the Preppie."  If you know anything of Stanford in that time, it was preppie on preppie, so being called "the Preppie" was a hardball insult.  He was already seen as the Ken Doll to be dressed up as any character you wanted him to play.  Barbie left him so he married Ann.  He bored Barbie.

Not the guy to front for the PetroEmpire unless you want the world to rise up in fear and out of patience with us.  

But, let's go back to home and think about who has the character and talent to serve the "homeland" best.  Metric number One:  The American Dream.  Who knows it and loves it?

Candidate number one comes from a Single Mother whose own mother and father gave a lot of help raising her dark-skinned boy growing up in a middle-class neighborhood.  He has early childhood and youthful experience in Asian cultures, and his own home in Honolulu meant knowing other children of mixed races.  When he discovered his race in the reaction of Whites, it came as a surprise, but he learned to deal with it and to have an existential commitment to a post-racial America.  

He gets into Punahoe, the local prep school, and gets a scholarship to college.  His grandparents help pay for this education from the profits of his grandfather's business, selling furniture in a growing market.  He takes a bit of time to focus and hangs out instead of being a "grind."  But, when he does get his focus he gets to Harvard Law and becomes the first Black editor of the law review.  He works as a community organizer and teaches constitutional law in Chicago before getting elected to the state legislature and the US Senate.

He was paying off student loans while serving in the Senate until sales of his books allowed him to have a positive bank account.  

Candidate Number Two inherited his first million from a very successful father who was once a candidate for nomination for President with a real chance.  As has become typical for Republicans, his father suffered for honesty and inability to maintain the solemnity of the lie.  Candidate Number Two will never allow that to happen to him.  He has internalized the economic dogma of Wall St., and the images of marketing.  If they could just get that inner human being to stop trying to come out, he might be able to avoid the "gaffes."  Why can't he just trust the Ken Doll to be the Ken Doll?  

For anyone wanting another Reagan, sorry.  Romney does not have Reagan's "acting skills" so he just comes off empty in a really creepy way.  He is almost lifelike, but not quite.  Poor boy, he never had it bad enough to have to grow up at all.  He was born on third and thinks he hit a homer when he scored on a sacrifice fly.  He can take all the money he can grab by hook or by crook, and blame his critics for jealousy of his money.

American Dream Score:  Many to Zero.  Unless your Dream is to leave your kids too much money and not enough humanity.  How Obama can be framed as "foreign" requires an appreciation of the pathology of the Right.

Domestic Metric Number Two:  The Stupid Economy

OK, this one requires a short-term focus on economics over the environment or even the social health and stability of American society or our global context.  It also requires next to no time to deal with.  Candidate Number Two offers the Bush/Cheney years again in economic theory as well as in foreign policy.  Candidate Number One has been way too cautious about unmasking the false theoretical constructs at work with Wall St. or in bringing in "the Untouchables" to break the mob.  But, he has supported the mild reforms that are beginning to nip at the heels of Citibank and its gangs.  The end of all debate is the behavior of the GOPimp Do Nothings in the House and the filibuster louts in the Senate who prevented all the sensible Obama recovery investments and were part of the wrecking crews in the 'red' states.  The idea that creating a bad economy will redound to the defeat of their opponent ought to get a "what?"  Won't you get the blame for sabotage?  Here Obama gets all the economic factors over Romney who is clueless about why his ideology does not work.

Metric Three:  Green.  Do you believe in science?  Obama in a walk-over

Metric Four:  Morality and Values.  A no-brainer for far too many.

Candidate One is a symbol of cultural political progress by his being the first Black-skinned President.  He is also "black" in the deeper sense of affirming his African-American identity even if it came from outside his home, and he has never rebelled against or rejected his European-American maternal family heritage.  Why not see him as an image of reconciliation and unity instead of making him the "alien" and "not one of us" symbol of cult partisan politics?

Candidate One is without blemish as a husband/father beyond the intimate shield of our knowledge.  In the hate campaign waged against him, any such incidents would be well-known headlines were they able to pass a minimum test for credibility.  They present an ideal American family image.  It is also amusing/disgusting to see Obama's actual faith questioned by people who demonize Rev. Jeremiah Wright.  Wright ran a reconciled, inter-racial congregation doing urban ministry in a tough neighborhood.  He is accused of speaking the truth in season, of being a Christian preacher who appreciated the duty of his ordination.  Obama loses a few points for accepting the politics instead of speaking up for Rev. Wright.

Candidate Two is a real conundrum.  Perfect Mormon family.  Dynasty, Utah style with virtuous vultures rescuing the carrion.  Funny thing, Mormonism is only an issue on the Right.  What the Mormons do politically transcends religious prejudices, so seeing Romney as part of the political culture wars when he renounces previous moderation to affirm the radicals is not about religion.  Unless you see America threatened by the loss of faith in God.  Then, all religion is good and all non-religion or weak and "faithless" religion becomes the threat.  Then, Romney stands up an puts his hand over his heart and speaks instead of singing "God Bless America," and all the believers think that all is pure and good in the land if they keep that God-link intact.

Hint:  The God-link to American Greatness and Destiny meme is deeply WASP, and its Southern Fried version is Gone With the Wind rather than Chickenshack.    It is White and Manor House.  It offers poor Whites a credential of "exceptionality" and a better place in the narrative than those "lesser" breeds.  At some point, the culture of Whiteness stays after the epidermis loses its obvious meaning.  One can be White, at that point, by affirmation and belief, rather than by being "oneself."

If we get more serious, what we hear from some cons suggests that wealth is the measure of success and respect deserved.  This would mean that Romney's fiscal responsibility is the virtue needed to be President.  How he made money would only matter were it illegal, and taking advantage of the legal limits is what "good business" is about.  Really?  Presidents, societies and good businesses really need a full set of responsibilties to put "making money" into a better perspective.  It is also a more honest economic bottom line when the externalities are accounted instead of blown off onto others.


anonymous green
drc2 wrote: Pardon me while I

drc2 wrote:

Pardon me while I smoke some of that "hemp" so I can get in on this "discussion."

...The God-link to American Greatness and Destiny meme is deeply WASP, and its Southern Fried version is Gone With the Wind rather than Chickenshack.    It is White and Manor House.  It offers poor Whites a credential of "exceptionality" and a better place in the narrative than those "lesser" breeds.  At some point, the culture of Whiteness stays after the epidermis loses its obvious meaning.  One can be White, at that point, by affirmation and belief, rather than by being "oneself."

Like I said, Hemp is for clothes and to make plastic out of.

Try some medicinal quality cannabis, grown organically and from natural stock by an expert, and you won't end up spouting gibbonish monkey words when you type.

eseltzy's picture
I was all prepared to find

I was all prepared to find drc2 obnoxious in several ways, but then he delivered the line of the week....and I became a fan of at least this post.  "He was born on third and thinks he hit a homer when he scored on a sacrifice fly."  Even assuming this was lifted without credit, it's so perfectly apt and in context, that ... well, you had me at homer.