We are in real danger of swerving so far to the right there's no coming back.

[cali]

Yes, I believe that Mitt can win. Or steal the election. He has far more money than Obama. New voting restriction laws will pare down the dems electorate.

Yes, I think the repubs could control the legislative branch as well.

And I believe that Mitt would take far right positions on just about everything. Deregulation would be the order of the day. Foreign policy would be a disaster. We'd be in a war with Iran in the blink of an eye. China and Russia? Just listen to what he's said.

The Supreme Court would be a la Scalia.

Medicare would be dismantled.

Medicaid would be dismantled even faster.

Social Security privatized.

Abortion would go back to the states by 2016 and some states would indeed ban it in all cases but the life of the mother.

Education would be privatized.

Energy, Climate Change would both get the repuke treatment.

Oh, there's some things they couldn't get through, like constitutional amendments defining life as beginning at conception, but civil rights for GLBT folks would take a giant step backward.

You want to claim that Obama is really conservative? Go for it. I don't agree, but what would come down the pike in Mitt/Ryan admin with a repub controlled Congress isn't going to be conservative. It's going to draconian. Right wing on steroids.

[kentuck]

1. Traditional conservatism looks "left-wing" to this present bunch of GOP'ers.

They are showing that they are willing to lie and steal to take the next election. My only hope is that the American people are not as dumb as they have been in the past. Big changes are ahead.

[cali]

2. It's not just about the American electorate being dumb

It's about the ramifications of Citizens United. It's about voting restriction in states like PA. It's about the absolutely relentless lying by R/R about such issues as welfare. It's about racism.

Those are looming obstacles to the President's re-election.

[kentuck]

4. If they were not ignorant or uninformed...

these lies would not be effective. In fact, they would be counter productive to anyone that tried them. Dumb = ignorant and uninformed.

[CabCurious]

10. We've commercialized information/news to the point of no return

Even with the internet, we see how sites like Huffington Post so quickly become trash commercial boob sites.

[hifiguy]

43. Correct. If more people were capable of

the most basic form of critical thinking and logic, Citizens United would have a substantially smaller effect. But for thirty years the populace has been dumbed down and for the last 20 years the propaganda spewed by the hate radio/fundamenalist hate machine has both played into and reinforced that dumbing down with a vengeance. My seat-of-the-pants estimate is that around 30% of the voting age population is metaphorically unable to tie its own shoes, intellectually speaking.

And dumb people are incredibly easy to gull and mislead. They are perfect targets for unscrupulous propaganda.

[bowens43]

3. sadly, I think that we are already there...greed, guns and 'god' have delivered us.

the majority of american people are ignorant, selfish, bigoted, freedom hating , science denying hard core (many closeted) right wingers. The lies the cons tell work because it's what the masses want to hear. They wouldn't believe the lies if those lies didn't support their world view. They don't believe the truth when they hear it because the truth doesn't support their beliefs.

our biggest enemy is religion, this is driving most of the hatred and elevating ignorance to a virtue. They believe that their little god gave them the right to destroy the planet so they can buy their SUVs.To hell with everyone who can't make it on their own.

We have republicans trying to pass legislation banning critical thinking and here in NC laws that explicitly prevent scientific findings from being considered when creating law concerning the environment and climate change. There is much much more of this to come. It will get much worse before it gets better. It may never get better. The hell that conservatives want to bring to our country may happen.

Make no mistake, the cons want to turn the US into a christain version of Afghanistan. Guns, god and greed.

women,minorities and anyone who believes in freedom are in for some very nasty times....

[cali]

5. we aren't even close to where we'll be

should repubs control the White House and Congress.

[hifiguy]

45. True. And if they do, we might be driven back to sanity

the hard way. As in the way Japan and Germany were after a little thing called WW II. The crackpots, theologues and neo-cons will inevitably start a war that we will not only not win, but one that could lead to mass destruction in the continental US. There's only so much of this horseshit the rest of the world will be willing to tolerate.

[Marrah_G]

8. Our biggest enemy, imho, is not religion

It is rather, the corporation using the religious, manipulating them into voting for whatever puppets they hold up.

[Marrah_G]

6. I think we have swung so far towards corporations already that there is no going back

IMHO the corps find the RW voters usuful tools and they play on their fears and prejudices. I think it will take a huge catalyst to break up this government and split the county into smaller portions that the people can truly have some control over.

[CabCurious]

9. Not just corporations. The FINANCE sector, specifically.

There is nothing inherently wrong with corporate America. It once cared about local communities.

The problem is that most corporations are being created today with a CEO's dream of selling it or just bailing on it. They have become commodities in themselves because of the dominance of the finance sector and its logic.

[hifiguy]

46. The always insightful Kevin Phillips was making the point

about the dangers of the "financialization" of the economy in "American Theocracy" some years ago.

[CabCurious]

7. Politics can be like a pendulum during reactionary times

And it's my opinion that the left often forgets (or doesn't realize) that our nation is conservative overall.

When we swing strongly to the left, things get pulled far-right in the next cycle.

[cali]

11. we haven't swung strongly to the left over the past 4 years.

it's absurd to claim that we have.

[Bonobo]

14. You're right.

The pendulum is broken. It currently swings (almost) only to the right.

What would it take to fix it? I don't see business as usual doing it.

Someone needs to scream out that it is broken. The people who watch and wait for the left swing need to scream it.

What is your solution? You are right that its momentum to the right must be stopped, but so does whatever the fuck that is preventing its normal motion to the left.

[CabCurious]

22. This was the risk we took with national health care reform

We had Congress and the White House for two years and pushed through something that we knew the public was uncomfortable with, which turned into claims of "socialism" and a reactionary swing to the right.

[Bonobo]

25. Bing-friggin-go!

But to clear up a couple of mistakes you seem to make.

It wasn't that the public was uncomfortable with it.

The problem was we took half-measures and STILL suffered from the political attack from their side calling it socialism which they would have done either way.

In the end, we were conservative and got called wild radicals, cementing our centrism and redefining it as left wing.

[CabCurious]

28. USA was absolutely uncomfortable with health care reform. As for centrism...

Yes, the public was uncomfortable with a federal health program. Yes, absolutely.

They still are. I doubt more then 25% of the nation could even accurately talk about it, though.

The commercial media has FAILED to represent what the program was, accurately, rather than playing into a "both sides equal" approach to reporting. That's the deeper problem with our politics.

It's also my view that our center IS center-right by global standards, but not genuinely conservative by our standards, especially not on social issues. Nonetheless, the right increasingly calls the center "liberal" and "socialist" which is fine by me. The more extreme the right gets, the less sway they have over the center.

Clinton helped nudge the nation slightly to the left by adjusting the center to the left.

Obama and the Dems may have a similar opportunity to do the same in the coming four years, especially if they are STRONG on the economy and continue to reduce the deficit. That will require military cuts and immigration reform.

[Bonobo]

31. Clinton absolutely did NOT adjust the center to the left.

I could not possibly disagree more. He did the opposite.

[CabCurious]

32. I would expect many democrats to agree with you...

But Clinton outflanked the Republicans on the economy. He made stronger arguments than them.

He is the ONLY politician in 35 years to give "trickle down" a serious punch in the face and to gain credibility for alternate ways of thinking, hence he shifted the discourse to the left. Slightly.

Obviously those left-of-center consider him a "conservative" for believing in markets and free trade at all.

[99Forever]

39. Horsepucky.

Every poll showed that the People supported MORE health care reform, not the opposite.

Why are you here on a Democratic web site spewing rightwing talking points?

[CabCurious]

21. I agree, although conservatives don't see it that way

Obamacare.

[TBF]

35. "our nation is conservative overall" - do you have anything to back

that up comrade?

Labor has had a strong foothold in this country - so much so that socialist candidates were threatening in the early part of the 20th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs).

It has only been the last 30 years that we have had this extreme right turn - if you are young you may not realize. Read some history and enjoy your stay.

[ananda]

40. Well, while the nation is not conservative over all..

.. the vote in many of the swing and red states is controlled
by conservatives.

And at the same time, the media and polling machines are
bombarding us nonstop with rightwing polls and propaganda.

[TBF]

42. Rigging voting machines and making it harder to vote

is not indicative of people being "conservative". It is indicative of republicans buying elections ...

But I'll agree that the media is a problem - no doubt about that.

[MadHound]

12. Our political consversation in this country has deginerated

It is now a contest between center-right moderates and bat shit crazy right wing nuts. The left no longer has a place in this dialogue.

[kentuck]

13. And whose fault is that??

I would say we have no one to blame but ourselves. We compromised ourselves into nonexistence.

[Bonobo]

15. Yes. In a nutshell. You got it.

You don't compromise with nutjobs and you don't compromise on principles and you don't compromise when you are right.

If you do, you lose ground and you lose clear-sightedness and you lose your way.

[MadHound]

18. Should have split from the Democratic party long ago,

Formed a serious left wing party. But nooooo, can't have that. After all, it isn't like the two major parties collaborated to keep third parties out of our political discussion. Oh, wait, they did.

[CabCurious]

23. commercialized information/news

[99Forever]

41. Umm Kentuck...

... who's "we?"

Every time "we" raised our voice as one shitty "deal" after another was struck, in the name of "reaching across the aisle," the clamor from the corporate Dems was to STFU. If you're gonna point the finger, it sure as fuck shouldn't be at "the Left." "We" got sold out by Bluedogs and "DLC centrists."

"We" told them this would be the result, but like all know-it-alls, they "knew better."

[TBF]

36. The left has been long gone - banished via the Palmer Raids

and McCarthyism. We are trying to catch up after generations ... I would go so far as to say centrists have little place in this dialogue.

[mmonk]

16. I think Obama is economically conservative. That being said, we're facing

a very dark and unstable future if Romney/Ryan wins, especially with any success of the extremists this movement has in Congress. I find I have no faith in the future of this country currently due to the depths the corporate rights movement and religious right may take us. We may be in for a lot of turmoil.

[CabCurious]

24. He's trying to be fiscalling responsible, which isn't "conservative"

If you are opposed to all aspects of markets and capitalism, then I guess a mixed economy seems conservative to you.

[kentuck]

26. Trillion dollar deficits - four years in a row.

I heard on MSNBC this a.m. Does seem to be "fiscally responsible"? That's the argument we hear.

[CabCurious]

29. see the link in my sig. Obama has increased spending at the lowest rate since eisenhower.

The question is how well the commercial "news" represents reality.

[kentuck]

30. Yes. Because....

It started at the highest level in history. It is nowhere close to where it was in 2008-09, by your own graphs. Statistics can be tricky. Even though the President has been cutting spending, it is still at record highs. It has not gone down. And that is why Republicans are pissed off. He did not fix their mess.

[CabCurious]

33. Yes, stimulus spendig jacked up spending... but Obama has reduced deficits. Those are the facts.

And republicans crying about debt spending is like cats crying about fresh milk.

Romney has already, repeatedly stated that he will not cut a DIME of military spending.

That's $1.3 TRILLION DOLLARS.

We could solve our economic problems entirely with military spending cuts.

[CabCurious]

34. and it won't be four years in a row. He's reducing the deficit.

[mmonk]

47. What's conservative is continual budget cuts and "grand bargains"

in a period of high unemployment and low demand. But I'm not going by the labels in 2012 but my economics training.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

17. Obama is going to be re-elected. Yes, we are going to turn out in sufficient numbers to defeat

Rmoney.

But, if the suggestion or demand is being made that none of us should make our opposition known to swerving to the right, how will any of our Democratic Congressional candidates, Democratic Senate candidates, or President Obama know that we are opposed to swerving to the right?

Yes, Rmoney and the right-wing Republicans would be worse. But does that mean that we should not make our opposition to right-wing policies known when the persons approving and engaging in right-wing policies have a big &quot D)" after their names?

1. Can anyone deny that we are now engaged in endless wars in the Middle-East? Is it not a right-wing policy to engage in endless wars? Who gave de facto immunity to the self-admitted war criminals from the previous Administration? Who now uses a hit list to select where the next drones are sent?

2. Are all judicial appointees liberals or progressives when they are appointed by President Obama? If he does not have the votes to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court and judges to the lower courts without some cooperation of the right-wing Republicans, should we think that things will be different in his second term? Are we to believe, for example, that Justice Kagan is a liberal or progressive because of her gender or for any other reason? Can anyone point to any criminal law case in which she has taken a liberal or progressive position?

She's not Scalia, but she is not an Earl Warren either. (For those who are not familiar with the situation, the Supreme Court has not gutted the Miranda rule. All that is left is Kabuki theatre.)

3. When the right-wing Republicans came up with the idea of the mandatory purchase of health insurance as an alternative to genuine health care reform, who adopted it and signed the legislation mandating it? It wasn't a right-wing Republican.

4. Social Security would be privatized under Rmoney? But who appointed the anti-Social Security members to the Cat-Food Commission? Some right-wing Republican? Or President Obama? Who has since coupled remarks about Social Security with comments about the need for austerity?

5. With respect to the privatization of education, who appointed Arne Duncan to be the Secretary of Education? Duncan favors the privatization of education. Which President has not reined him in? Are things going to change after the election? In which direction?

6. If President Obama has not be able to make new policies with respect to energy and the climate changes because "he has not had the votes" or for some other reason, how are things going to change after the election?

7. Who extended the Bush tax cuts for the super-rich instead of allowing them to expire? A right-wing Republican? Or President Obama? Before the tax cuts for the super-rich expire this time, who is going to sign the legislation extending them?

8. Who has been the President while the Department of Justice under Holder has not gone after the banksters but has sat on the sidelines while the statute of limitations has been running?

9. Who has been the President while the Department of Justice has not gone after the police who have used unnecessary and excessive force against peaceful protesters when they have exercised their First Amendment rights?

10. What happened to the promise to revise NAFTA? Instead, who has since signed three job-transferring "free-trade" agreements? The so-called "free-trade" agreements involved three relatively small countries, but they were still job-shifting "free-trade" agreements. Whose Administration is currently negotiating another let's-send-even-more-jobs-to-foreign-countries "free-trade" agreement? Rmoney has already let it be known that he favors it. So does President Obama.

Our only hope of stopping this next job-shifting "free-trade" agreement, the NAFTA of the Pacific, is to convince enough Democratic Senators to refuse to approve it.


So when exactly is it the right time to let it be known that we do not favor swerving to the right? Do we wait until the next bail-out of the banksters? Do we wait until a hot war is underway with Iran? Do we wait until the actual unemployment is even higher? Or will we be told once again that we cannot criticize right-wing actions and policies?

Is the truthful but unspoken answer: "Never."

[goclark]

19. Agree completely! k and r

Morning Jo going on and on @ how close the race is this morning.
"Romney's plan for growing the economy will Work."

Last wk. he slipped and didn't suupport the rethugs fairy Tales.
Bet he got a visit from the Rethugmob last night.

[randome]

20. Gay rights is the geni that can't be put back into the bottle.

The demographics favor Progressives now and in the near future.

The only way conservatives managed to steal the 2000 election was by fiddling with the margins. They got away with it and they are trying to squeeze more of the same out of the electorate with voter suppression efforts.

But outright fraud is not something they can pull off.

Danger is always present with these knuckle-draggers but I think the momentum does not favor them currently. We don't dare relax but I think it's important to see things for how they really are lest we over-react and cause more problems for ourselves.

[Bluenorthwest]

37. To all of you gloom mongers who are so damn sure that 'more money=instant success'

Do you have even a tiny shred of proof, examples from life, anything to support this mad theory? Are any of you professionals in advertizing or marketing? Can you tell us of products that failed and then bought success with huge ad expenditures? Can you tell me why any 100 million dollar film fails to attract an audience when all they'd need to do is run more ads and get all kinds of profits? Why would any brand fail if simply spending more on marketing promised success?
I mean, on the subject of 'we have mega money, but they have even more' do you have any basis at all for thinking that difference in sums is such a hugely important factor?
Recent elections tend to show that spending tons can sink a candidate. Meg Whitman lost to Jerry Brown while outspending him 3 to 1. She lost big. Carly Fiorino also lost to Boxer, and she spent way, way more than Boxer did. Way more, and she lost.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

38. And that's when I will cheer on the revolutionary left... from the sidelines, though. nt

[Romulox]

44. People have a systematic way of thinking the world will declare things have gone "too far!"

when it is their ox being gored.

I'm really not so sure I agree.